The Revenue relied on third-party statements and WhatsApp data to allege an unrecorded ₹25 crore cash loan, but brought no supporting inquiry or cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusion was speculative, especially when bank-backed evidence, TDS records, and a registered loan agreement supported only a ₹10 crore loan. Key takeaway: additions under Section 69A require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
Tribunal held that amounts incurred as authorized pure-agent payments could not form part of taxable value. The ruling clarifies that failure to interpret Rule 5(2) correctly invalidated the demand.
Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, leaving intact the High Court ruling that registration under Section 12AA could not be denied when the institution’s educational objectives and utilization of income met statutory requirements.
Patna High Court ruled that pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax for CGST/BGST appeals cannot be made via Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL), upholding mandatory use of Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL).
Tribunal condoned a 938-day delay after finding that the appeal was incorrectly dismissed as withdrawn under VSVS. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the additions made under section 143(3).
ITAT Lucknow restored the reassessment u/s 147 after holding that CIT(A) misread the AO’s findings and wrongly assumed verification of books and cash deposits. The Tribunal found the appellate order perverse and allowed the Revenue’s appeal.
The High Court set aside a GST order against Sanjay Medicos, granting the petitioner time to reply to the SCN and a personal hearing, while leaving notification validity to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Form 9A was not applicable to Assessment Year 2015–16 and that the option under Section 11(1) had been validly exercised through Form 10B and the return. The rejection order was quashed.
Tribunal held that ₹15 crore received for withdrawing a civil suit was not consideration for transfer of a capital asset. It ruled that the assessee only gave up a right to sue, which is not taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(b) did not apply to a trust formed before 1961 and directed grant of registration. The key issue was whether activities for a Scheduled Caste community invalidated the application.
