The Court held that while Section 194H applies to supplementary commission, no tax demand survives once agents have paid tax. Recovery was limited to interest under section 201(1A).
The High Court upheld deletion of additions based solely on unsigned loose sheets seized during search. In absence of independent corroborative evidence, such documents were held to have no evidentiary value.
It was ruled that granting a single, common approval for multiple assessment years violates the mandate of Section 153D. Each assessment year requires separate and conscious examination by the approving authority.
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
The Tribunal ruled that Sections 144C and 153 must be read harmoniously and that DRP proceedings do not extend statutory limitation. Any final order issued beyond the prescribed time is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Additions based on third-party statements alleging circular trading were rejected as they did not refer to the assessee or show any cash trail. The ruling underscores that suspicion cannot replace evidence.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed, entire purchases cannot be disallowed and only the embedded profit can be taxed, upholding a 20% addition.
It was held that a proposed object-clause amendment cannot justify outright rejection of 80G renewal. What matters is actual application of funds, not a removable clause in the trust deed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
The Court held that post-amalgamation, the transferor company cannot claim GST refunds. Unutilised ITC must move only through the statutory transfer mechanism, not by refund.
