ITAT Kolkata deleted ₹3.32 crore addition under Section 68, holding that complete documentary evidence proved the genuineness and identity of investors. Low income or meagre business activity of subscriber companies cannot justify treating share capital as unexplained.
Lease rentals of ₹2.88 crore from the company’s warehousing complex were rightly classified as income from house property, reversing the AO’s business income classification. This restored the standard deduction of ₹83.38 lakh under Section 24(1).
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are fully documented. Since the AO ignored evidence and relied only on non-appearance, the addition was deleted.
Since the assessee did not receive notices sent to a wrong email, non-compliance findings were unsustainable. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to examine evidence and pass a speaking order after granting a proper hearing
Kerala High Court held that the excess GST liability pertaining to the transactions relating to the contract is question needs to be reimbursed to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions stated in the contract. Accordingly, writ allowed to that extent.
Bombay High Court held that passing of impugned order denying rebate claim under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules without dealing with crucial issues and without considering the submissions is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is set aside and matter is remanded back.
NCLAT Delhi held that NCLT erred by not enforcing valid Family Settlement Agreement since such agreement is binding and enforceable for resolving family company disputes which involves oppression and management.
Supreme Court declines judicial intervention in GST registration, emphasizing policy decisions rest with the government and legislature.
High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand involving alleged fraudulent ITC, holding that disputed facts must be resolved through the statutory appeal process.
The Court held that amounts paid under protest before assessment must be considered when calculating the 10% pre-deposit required under Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act. The ruling restores the appeal and confirms that the statute must be interpreted strictly as written.
