The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to properly apply the principles governing section 80P deductions relating to nominal members, statutory deposits, and co-operative society investments. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with settled law.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
Where an EPCG licence holder becomes incapable of fulfilling export obligations due to unavoidable circumstances such as SARFAESI auction of imported assets, levy of interest and penalty cannot be sustained, particularly when customs duty has already been recovered through encashment of bank guarantees. Tribunal upheld only the customs duty demand while setting aside confiscation, interest and penalty.
The Tribunal emphasized that detailed quantitative reconciliation and accepted export realizations carried substantial evidentiary value in the diamond trade. In the absence of discrepancies in stock records or sales, the alleged bogus purchase addition was deleted in full.
The Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the High Court had rightly found prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged liquor syndicate. The Court emphasized that serious corruption allegations warranted an unhindered investigation.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the taxpayer filed pending returns and undertook to pay applicable tax, interest, late fees, and penalties. The ruling reiterates that eligible taxpayers may seek relief under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.
The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits and restricted market competition. The ruling directs them to cease such anti-competitive practices.
The Tribunal held that procurement strategy, supplier oversight, and sourcing support formed part of a substantive procurement service. Since these services were provided on the supplier’s own account, refund of IGST was denied.
The High Court granted bail in a POCSO case after noting that the victim did not support the prosecution story in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The Court also considered the filing of the charge sheet and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
