The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verification. The absence of direct linkage and corroboration led to deletion of additions.
ITAT Hyderabad quashes reassessment as Section 148 notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021; failure to follow mandatory Section 148A procedure and obtain proper approval rendered proceedings invalid.
ITAT Pune sets aside ₹11.57 lakh disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for alleged PF/ESI delay, citing conflicting Supreme Court views in Woodland vs Checkmate; matter remanded to CIT(A) for fresh factual and legal adjudication.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai rules scholarships to Indian students studying abroad qualify as valid charitable application in India. Denial of 12AB and 80G set aside, clarifying registration stage scope is limited to objects and genuineness.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹1.64 Cr reassessment for faceless violation & time-barred notice u/s 148; holds jurisdictional defect fatal, TOLA cannot extend limitation.
The court examined whether delay in Form 10B filing could be condoned but found the authority rejected it on unrelated grounds. It held that such rejection beyond the scope of Section 119(2)(b) was invalid and remanded the matter.
