ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 69C cannot be made if the AO exceeds the scope of directions issued under Section 263, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The ITAT condoned a two-day delay caused by OTP and system issues, noting the Revenue’s failure to rebut the explanation. The ruling affirms a pragmatic approach to minor procedural lapses.
The tribunal held that every oil well constitutes an independent undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80IB(9). The key takeaway is that profits of individual wells cannot be clubbed merely because they operate under a single contract.
The tribunal held that assessments completed through the DRP mechanism remain subject to the outer time limit prescribed under section 153. The key takeaway is that section 144C does not extend or override statutory limitation periods.
Karnataka High Court held that inadvertent mistake committed while filing GSTR-1 return is permitted to be amended since there was no loss of revenue whatsoever to the department post such rectification of error.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of Traffic and Transit Management Centers is covered within the ambit of transport terminal, and hence falls within the exclusion category of definition of taxable services of Works Contract Services, and hence the same is not liable to service tax.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned on deposits from cooperative banks by credit societies is attributable to their business of lending and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Bangalore ruled that interest earned by cooperative societies from cooperative bank deposits is attributable to their business of providing credit and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The High Court held that evaded turnover cannot be enhanced arbitrarily based on one fake invoice. Estimation must be proportionate to evidence and based on reasonable judgment.
The Bombay High Court ruled that cancellation of GST registration does not nullify tax liabilities for prior periods, but the matter was remitted for a hearing after the petitioners were initially denied the opportunity.
