The issue was whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant year.
The issue was whether SBN deposits accepted by a co-operative society during demonetisation could be added under Section 68 solely because the notes ceased to be legal tender.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
The Kerala High Court set aside a consolidated notice issued for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25. It held that separate notices must be issued for each assessment year in line with earlier precedents.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that funds received by a Chartered Accountant for remitting clients’ taxes could not be treated as unexplained money. Documentary evidence showing corresponding tax payments led to deletion of the additions.
ITAT Mumbai held that appellate forums can entertain additional claims even without a revised return. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the alleged double taxation claim.
The Court granted interim protection after observing that proceedings under Section 73 appeared to nullify refund orders sanctioned under Section 54 without invoking the appellate remedy under Section 107.
The Gauhati High Court held that partners who retained benefits from GST violations and acted behind such transactions can be penalized under Section 122(1A). The ruling clarifies that liability extends beyond the taxable entity in appropriate cases.
