The High Court quashed recovery proceedings for ITC reversal, holding that mere non-deposit of tax by the supplier is insufficient without proof of collusion, fake invoices, or lack of bona fides.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that 176 customized aircraft components are classifiable under CTH 88073000 as Other parts of aeroplanes. The Authority held that the goods are exclusively designed for aircraft use and are not parts of general use under Section XVII Notes.
CAAR Mumbai refused to issue a fresh ruling on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue was already decided by the Madras High Court. The statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act was applied.
The Revenue denied deduction by treating bank interest as Income from Other Sources. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the interest income forms part of business profits eligible for Section 80P.
ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of ₹60 lakh addition after finding that the assessee furnished confirmations, audited financials, bank statements, and Section 133(6) replies. In absence of direct evidence linking loans to accommodation entries, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Court reaffirmed that lease rent paid for use of land qualifies as “rent” under Section 194I. Revenue’s appeals were dismissed in light of binding precedent.
The AO added expenditure based solely on a mistaken audit report entry. The ITAT deleted the addition after confirming from the concerned party that no transaction occurred.
ITAT held that goodwill arising from acquisition of a business as a going concern represents a bundle of commercial and business rights. Following Supreme Court precedent, depreciation under Section 32 was allowed for AY 2018–19.
The ITAT held that for a builder following the project completion method, income arises on handing over possession and not merely on registration of sale agreement. The addition of entire sale consideration under Section 2(47) was ruled unsustainable.
Pursuant to High Court observations and fresh investigation, GSTAT held that the developer did not gain additional ITC benefit warranting price reduction.
