The ITAT held that the appellate authority mechanically affirmed reassessment additions without independent examination of merits. The matter was remanded to grant the assessee a fair and effective opportunity to explain cash deposits and other additions.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest paid on account of delayed remittance of TDS cannot be treated as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order disallowing the same is upheld.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
The case examined whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders could stand without merit-based adjudication. The Tribunal held that failure to decide all grounds violates natural justice and ordered a fresh assessment.
Karnataka High Court quashes demand of GST against Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by concluding that regulatory function discharged by commission doesn’t qualify as taxable supply. Accordingly, order and notice quashed.
The ITAT held that a deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form 10DA was partially invisible on the tax portal. The issue was remanded for limited verification now that the complete form is available.
ITAT Delhi held that without a clear and direct connection between the facts and the alleged escapement of income, the reasons recorded remains speculative, therefore, the reopening cannot be justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The ITAT held that additions based on incorrect and unreconciled bank data cannot be sustained. The assessment was remanded for fresh verification of actual cash deposits and credits.
The ITAT held that registration cannot be denied based on an incorrect interpretation of trust objects. Where amended deeds and clarifications exist, authorities must examine them before rejecting 12AB registration.
The ITAT held that reassessment based on a duplicate PAN, despite disclosure under a valid PAN, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Ex parte orders passed without addressing such objections violate principles of natural justice.
