Karnataka High Court quashes demand of GST against Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by concluding that regulatory function discharged by commission doesn’t qualify as taxable supply. Accordingly, order and notice quashed.
The ITAT held that a deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form 10DA was partially invisible on the tax portal. The issue was remanded for limited verification now that the complete form is available.
ITAT Delhi held that without a clear and direct connection between the facts and the alleged escapement of income, the reasons recorded remains speculative, therefore, the reopening cannot be justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The ITAT held that additions based on incorrect and unreconciled bank data cannot be sustained. The assessment was remanded for fresh verification of actual cash deposits and credits.
The ITAT held that registration cannot be denied based on an incorrect interpretation of trust objects. Where amended deeds and clarifications exist, authorities must examine them before rejecting 12AB registration.
The ITAT held that reassessment based on a duplicate PAN, despite disclosure under a valid PAN, suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Ex parte orders passed without addressing such objections violate principles of natural justice.
The ITAT held that reassessment issued after three years is void if approval is taken from an incompetent authority. Wrong sanction under section 151 renders the entire reopening unsustainable in law.
The ITAT held that undated satisfaction notes defeat jurisdiction under section 153C. In such cases, limitation must be computed from the notice date, making assessments beyond the block period void.
The ITAT ruled that acknowledging donors at religious events does not amount to commercial advertising. Voluntary donations used for religious purposes retain exemption under section 11 despite name displays.
The issue concerned denial of depreciation for want of year-wise details and WDV computation. The Tribunal held that the claim requires fresh examination and remanded the matter for de novo assessment.
