The Tribunal held that accumulated savings and customary cash gifts over 40 years of marital life were a plausible explanation for seized cash. It deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when the bank account is recorded in audited books and disclosed in the ITR. In absence of contrary evidence, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in generation of electricity is admissible only to the extent the electricity produced and utilized in the factory of production and not on the portion of electricity transferred/sold to the grid.
The Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory duties under Sections 250(4) and 250(6). The dismissal on delay alone was held improper, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be used to penalize deduction under an incorrect TDS provision when tax was actually deducted. The expenditure disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Bombay High Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple financial years is impermissible. The ruling emphasizes that limitation and assessment under GST operate year-wise.
The Supreme Court held that refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is not payable to the applicant if tax incidence was passed on. The amount must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The Tribunal observed that similar deductions were allowed in earlier scrutiny assessments. Finding no error in the Assessing Officer’s view, it annulled the revision proceedings.
Relying on CBDT instructions and precedent, the Tribunal ruled that approval for reopening must come from the CCIT. Approval by PCIT rendered the notice and assessment unsustainable.
