ITAT Raipur ruled that cash deposits made by an advocate on behalf of clients cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO and CIT(A)/NFAC conducted no inquiry and ignored over 100 supporting challans. This reinforces the principle that evidence and factual verification are essential before making additions.
ITAT Raipur set aside a Rs. 14.73 lakh addition under Section 69C after finding the CIT(A) misinterpreted the assessee’s wife’s financial capacity, affirming proper documentation supports legitimate expenditure.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that interconnect service charges paid to non-resident telecom operators do not constitute royalty. The appeal by DCIT was dismissed, following a prior Co-ordinate Bench decision.
Disallowance of ₹10.2 lakh on bank interest by the AO was reversed by ITAT, relying on favorable Karnataka HC rulings. The Tribunal confirmed that interest on surplus funds deposited in co-operative banks counts as business income eligible for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction.
The Court held that ITC refund on capital goods cannot be granted when the dealer failed to file TRAN-1 under GST transition rules. The ruling confirms that the VAT Act provides no mechanism for such refunds.
Delhi High Court remits Rs. 3.05 Cr CGST demand for re-adjudication after observing the Proper Officer did not consider the petitioner’s detailed reply and failed to provide opportunity to clarify.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowances under section 36(1)(va) for employee PF/ESIC contributions before AY 2021-22 were unsustainable, as Finance Act 2021 amendments are prospective. The Tribunal directed AO to delete additions, safeguarding assessee from retrospective impact.
The High Court held that a works contract for supply, installation, and commissioning of machinery was indivisible. The Court allowed tax benefits under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
The ITAT held that without pinpointing specific defects in books or vouchers, an arbitrary ₹50 lakh disallowance cannot stand. The ruling confirms that estimation cannot replace factual verification.
The court held that non-disclosure of CESS in GSTR-3B, corrected in GSTR-9, was revenue neutral. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the case.
