CESTAT Delhi held that transportation and distribution of newspapers by road constituted services covered under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that incidental loading and unloading activities did not alter the essential character of the service.
ITAT Surat held that additions relating to credit card payments and cash deposits could not be sustained when the assessee had explained them through sales of Amway products and commission income. The Tribunal found that these details had been overlooked by the tax authorities.
The ITAT Ranchi held that additions for unsecured loans could not survive in the lender’s hands when the recipient company had already disclosed the entire amount as income. The Revenue’s inability to rebut this factual finding led to dismissal of the appeals.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 revision was valid where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries into suspected bogus purchases. The ruling emphasizes that inadequate verification can render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that opening balances and share application money converted into loans from earlier years fall outside the scope of Section 68 for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition after finding factual and legal infirmities in the assessment.
The Madras High Court remanded an ex parte assessment arising from a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch after finding that the assessee should be allowed to present its case. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the disputed amounts represented sale proceeds already disclosed and offered to tax. The Tribunal ruled that no income had escaped assessment in such circumstances.
ITAT Pune held that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied merely because Form 67 was filed after the prescribed due date. The Tribunal ruled that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and cannot override the substantive right to FTC under the DTAA.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 69A cannot be mechanically invoked without establishing that the deposits constitute unexplained income. Evidence of genuine business activity justified taxation only of the profit component.
