The Tribunal found that the investors had substantial net worth far exceeding their investments. With PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and audited financials on record, the share capital could not be treated as unexplained.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that internally and externally threaded elbows, bends, tees, sleeves and crosses must be classified under specific tariff headings based on material composition. The Authority held that specific entries prevail over general or residuary classifications under the Customs Tariff Act.
The Tribunal confirmed that once identity, source, and movement of funds are established through records, treating the investment as unexplained is unjustified. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the contractor failed to fully pass on GST input tax credit benefits under Section 171. It directed refund of ₹9.36 lakh proportionate amount with interest for completed work.
The Tribunal held that once records were audited and within departmental knowledge, extended limitation under Section 73 could not be invoked again, rendering the demand time-barred.
The Tribunal held that CPC wrongly applied the outdated ₹3 lakh ceiling despite Notification No. 31/2023 enhancing the limit to ₹25 lakh. Since the retirement benefit was within the revised cap, full exemption under Section 10(10AA) was directed.
The ITAT held that fresh allotment of shares at a value below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(viia). The term receives includes allotment, and the differential amount was rightly taxed as income from other sources.
The ITAT held that absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect. Since the notice was not properly issued by the competent officer, the entire assessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that proving source of source was not mandatory for AY 2014-15. Since identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established, unsecured loan additions were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on non-compete fees despite Supreme Court ruling it as revenue expenditure, citing practical difficulty and revenue-neutral impact. Revenues appeal was dismissed.
