The High Court declined to entertain a writ challenging a GST order, holding that no exceptional case was made out to bypass the appellate remedy. The ruling reiterates the principle of exhausting statutory appeals before invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that a mere disallowance of depreciation, with full disclosure of facts, does not attract penalty under Section 270A.
Revenue counted limitation from the third-party search date, while the assessee argued it should start from document handover. ITAT Delhi agreed, holding the assessment outside the six-year period, thereby voiding it.
The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The issue was whether accumulated income could be taxed merely because it was not spent exactly for the purpose stated in Form-10. ITAT Delhi held that as long as funds are applied toward charitable educational objects, technical lapses or non-intimation to the AO cannot defeat exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
Gauhati High Court held that writ petition is not maintainable due to availability of alternative efficacious remedy under the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 before appellate authority. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Jaipur Tribunal observed that the son had no independent income, and the purchase was made solely from the assessee’s funds. Consequently, restriction of exemption to 50% by the CIT(A) was set aside, confirming full Section 54F relief.
ITAT Jaipur held that withdrawing approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act not justified in absence of any corroborative evidence of personal benefit of trustees and misuse of funds. Accordingly, appeal allowed and registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi) restored.
Bombay High Court held that registration of vehicle in the name of innocent purchaser cannot be cancelled solely on the basis that initial registration was obtained by making false representation on the basis of forged documents.
