The Tribunal applied long-standing rulings invalidating the intensity and BLT approaches for AMP benchmarking, deleting both substantive and protective adjustments. The decision underscores that such methods lack statutory support.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a co-purchaser of property is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA if their individual share is below ₹50 lakh, even if total consideration exceeds the limit. The Tribunal quashed both AO and CIT(A) orders.
The Tribunal held that use of surplus for land purchase in the society’s name reflects genuine educational intent. It rejected the view that recurring surplus amounts to profit motive and found the earlier inquiry incomplete. The application under Section 10(23C)(vi) was remanded for proper evaluation.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that CAD software with a short lifecycle and frequent upgrades qualifies as revenue expenditure, enabling full Section 80IC deduction. AO and CIT(A) orders were set aside.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imported Chinese Coke Breeze used for metallurgical purpose only and not for any other purpose like non-metal extraction, etc. would be entitled to benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dt.17.03.2012. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in refusing to consider the USAID–AE agreement, which directly established the back-to-back cost-plus-6% model. It ruled that such crucial evidence cannot be dismissed on a procedural technicality and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Court ruled that a fresh demand under Section 73 cannot be raised when the taxpayer’s explanation under Section 61(2) was already accepted. The decision sets aside the SCN and order issued on the same grounds.
Court allowed bail to a businessman accused of claiming input tax credit through shell companies, citing completed investigation and documentary evidence. Bail conditions include appearing at trial and avoiding evidence tampering.
he Court dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation, noting the petitioner’s failure to file statutory remedies within prescribed timelines.
Court held that an appeal must be filed before Tribunal within notified window and directed a 10% penalty pre-deposit. It ruled that earlier tax-related deposits cannot be adjusted, and protected petitioner from coercive action after compliance.
