The Court held that earlier orders ignored relevant High Court decisions interpreting Rule 90(3). The refund claim must now be reconsidered afresh within a fixed timeline.
The ITAT ruled that Section 194H does not apply to margins or discounts given to telecom distributors for prepaid products. Distributors operate on a principal-to-principal basis, so TDS cannot be imposed on amounts not paid or credited by the assessee.
The ITAT held that blank letterheads found during a search are dumb documents and cannot constitute incriminating material. Since no corroborative evidence existed, all 153A additions and penalties were invalidated, reaffirming that suspicion alone cannot sustain assessments.
The Court held that objections raised by Customs lacked merit, noting similar goods were earlier cleared without issue. The review was dismissed and costs were imposed for unjustified action.
The High Court held that the Commissioner did not properly apply the wide discretionary powers under section 264. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the petitioner’s circumstances and submitted records.
The tribunal held that brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation remain in the books until fully absorbed and must be allowed as reduction under Section 115JB. The ruling rejects the Revenue’s stand and upholds the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition.
Court held that undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B may be computed using both seized search material and other information connected to it. The ruling confirms the Assessing Officer’s power to rely on post-search enquiries if they relate to search evidence.
The High Court ruled that undisclosed income can be assessed using both search material and other information relatable to it, confirming the ITAT’s interpretation of Section 158-BB.
The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner’s suo motu revision under Section 263 was unjustified, confirming that donations to other charitable trusts qualify as application of income under Section 11.
The High Court examined a claim that cash recovered during raids originated from a 2008 family settlement. The authorities challenged this, citing suspicion of illegal gratification and procedural gaps.
