The court declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) in absence of clear factual basis. It held that disputed facts must be examined through statutory appellate remedies.
The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with supporting documents before the proper officer.
ITAT found that assessment and appeal orders were passed without proper opportunity due to communication issues. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting fair hearing.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition for alleged on-money as no direct evidence linked assessee. Pen drive data lacked Section 65B proof and cross-exam was denied, rendering addition unsustainable.
The authority ruled that panels with engineered edges and contours exceed the scope of sheets under Chapter Note 10. This led to their exclusion from Heading 3921 and classification under Heading 3925.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld relief where the assessee provided proof of agricultural activities and income. It rejected additions based solely on statements without investigation. The case underscores the importance of documentary support.
The Tribunal held that total investment in the new property must be considered for exemption, not just payments within one year. It allowed full capital gains exemption as conditions were substantially met.
ITAT Mumbai deleted Section 69 addition on alleged on-money, holding third-party statements and unverified pen drive data lack evidentiary value without corroboration or cross-examination, upholding natural justice.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
