Madras High Court held that grant-in-aid/ subsidy received from the Government under a rehabilitation scheme is capital receipt and cannot be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of appellant.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
Calcutta High Court held that present writ petition filed by personal guarantor is not maintainable since the proceeding u/s. 95 of the IBC is pending before Adjudicating Authority and petition is filed without taking appropriate steps before appropriate forum.
Rejecting a summary denial of deductions, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify whether mortgage repayments and other costs were wholly connected with the transfer. Taxpayers were directed to cooperate and file complete evidence.
Gujarat High Court held that the services received in respect of setting up the captive wind mill plant are eligible for the Cenvat Credit under rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The issue was whether foreign bank balances funded through LRS could be taxed as unexplained credits. ITAT held that once the source and opening balance are established, section 68 cannot be invoked merely on peak-credit theory.
The issue was whether unsecured loan additions under section 68 could survive based solely on investigation reports and third-party statements. ITAT held that without independent enquiry and nexus to seized material, such additions are unsustainable.
The ITAT held that earning significant exempt dividend income necessarily involves indirect administrative expenses. In the absence of separate books, the AO rightly applied Rule 8D to compute disallowance.
The issue was whether penalties under sections 271D and 271E apply to cash dealings of a credit society with its members. ITAT held that genuine, audited member transactions supported by reasonable cause are protected under section 273B.
The issue was whether demonetisation-era deposits could be taxed despite admitted prior withdrawals. ITAT held that when withdrawals are genuine and the occasion is real, section 69A cannot be applied on presumptions.
