The Tribunal held that issues like capitation fee or misuse of funds are assessment matters, not grounds for denying registration under Section 12AA. The ruling confirms that the Commissioner must limit inquiry to objects and genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal clarified that income from events, totaling less than 20% of gross receipts, does not disqualify a GPU institution from claiming Section 11 exemption. The Assessing Officer’s and CIT(A)’s denial was set aside, as membership fees were not commercial income. Exemption was granted, confirming the society’s charitable status.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger invoking rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is impermissible. Accordingly, order is quashed.
The Tribunal held that only the first non-compliance under Section 142(1) could attract penalty, deleting the remaining ₹50,000 imposed for repeated defaults. It also restored penalties under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) for fresh adjudication since they depend on the pending quantum appeal.
Rajasthan High Court held that criminal prosecution wholly on allegation of concealment is liable to be quashed since the Tribunal has adjudicated that there was neither concealment during penalty proceedings hence there remains no factual or legal basis for the prosecution to survive.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted and basic supporting documents exist, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld a 6% GP addition and rejected the Revenue’s demand for 100% disallowance.
The order was remanded after ITAT found the CIT(A) overlooked core issues including validity of belated 148 return, applicability of 153C, and cross-examination rights.
In a landmark ruling, the SC clarified that an assessee in default cannot be made to pay tax already discharged by the recipient, reaffirming Circular No. 275/201/95-IT(B).
ITAT Kolkata quashed a reassessment order, holding that NFAC had no jurisdiction before the formal notification of Section 151A. The ₹2.14 crore addition was deleted, highlighting that faceless assessments cannot be retroactively enforced.
After examining the step-wise rework operations, the Tribunal found no specialized skill or scientific process involved. It upheld the deletion of the ₹4.81-crore disallowance since the payments did not attract TDS under FTS provisions.
