The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court observed that personal penalties on directors cannot be imposed without independent proceedings. It emphasized the need for separate registration and proper procedure.
Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on identical material already examined is invalid. It ruled that reassessment cannot be used to revisit concluded issues without fresh evidence.
The case examined whether minor valuation differences can trigger taxation under Section 56(2)(x). ITAT held that differences within 10% fall within permissible tolerance. The ruling protects genuine transactions from arbitrary additions.
The case addressed whether income can be corrected without filing a revised return. ITAT held that genuine computational errors can be rectified through revised computation during assessment. The ruling prioritizes accurate income over procedural technicalities.
The case examined whether CSR expenses can qualify for deduction despite Section 37 disallowance. ITAT held that Section 80G operates independently and allows deduction for eligible donations. The ruling clarifies dual treatment of CSR spending.
The case examined whether old share capital can be taxed due to ROC strike-off of a shareholder. ITAT held that Section 68 applies only to credits in the relevant year. The ruling clarifies that historical transactions remain valid.
The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Section 151 is jurisdictional and must be from the correct authority. The entire reassessment was quashed for non-compliance.
The case examines whether estimated expense disallowances can be made without rejecting books of account. ITAT held such additions invalid, emphasizing that Section 145(3) rejection is a prerequisite. The ruling protects taxpayers from arbitrary disallowances.
