The Bombay High Court held that a DVO reference under Section 55A was invalid because the assessee’s declared value was higher than the fair market value. The ruling reiterates the scope of Section 55A as it existed before the 2012 amendment.
The Department maintained that search powers could be exercised where there was reason to believe that relevant documents and undisclosed assets were being kept at the premises. The matter involved both personal and third-party records.
The Bombay High Court held that an assessee cannot avoid tax merely because the same amount was taxed in another entity’s hands when the income actually belonged to the assessee. The Court upheld the addition of ₹1.71 crore arising from under-invoiced export transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that CSR-related donations can qualify for deduction under Section 80G when made to institutions approved under that provision. The Tribunal directed verification of eligibility and allowed the claim for statistical purposes.
ITAT Delhi held that deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied merely because donations were made as part of CSR obligations. The Tribunal ruled that contributions to eligible institutions remain deductible when statutory conditions are satisfied.
The ITAT Bangalore held that a deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because the payment formed part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal observed that denying the claim after CSR disallowance under Section 37(1) could result in double disallowance and remanded the matter for verification.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 74. The case arises from a Kerala High Court ruling that such consolidation prejudices taxpayers and violates the statutory scheme.
The appellate authority had rejected the exemption claim on limitation grounds, but ITAT held that the assessee’s explanation regarding bond availability warranted verification. The case was sent back to the Assessing Officer.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
The Informant alleged unfair subscription cancellation and service deficiencies by an AI platform. The CCI held that the matter was essentially a dispute between the parties and did not raise competition law concerns under Section 4.
