The Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act begins from the date of payment under the correct head. Refund rejection as time-barred was quashed.
ITAT Delhi ruled that non-response by suppliers to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify treating purchases as bogus. As the assessee furnished bills, bank records, and GST details and sales were accepted, deletion of ₹3.97 crore addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
The Tribunal ruled that undated, unsigned loose sheets lacking independent evidence cannot justify additions under Section 153A. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it deleted additions exceeding ₹2.10 crore for want of corroboration.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that where assessment is completed under Section 143(3), alleged earlier non-compliance with notices stands impliedly condoned. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore unsustainable and deleted.
The Tribunal held that once the return is accepted as valid under Section 139(1), denial of carry forward loss on belated filing grounds is contradictory and unsustainable.
Tribunal held that recurring software expenses such as licence renewals and database support fees are revenue in nature since no capital asset or ownership right was created. Deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
