The Court held that failure to prove identity and source of creditors attracts Section 68. Such unexplained credits cannot be treated as business income or eligible for deduction under Sections 80-IA/80-IB.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when additions are made on an estimated basis. It upheld deletion of penalty, emphasizing absence of concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verification of conditions and allowed relief if eligibility is established.
The case examined whether a partnership can shield unlawful sub-letting. The Supreme Court held that where possession is effectively transferred to third parties, courts can lift the veil and treat it as sub-letting. The ruling reinforces that substance prevails over form in tenancy disputes.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and Excel sheets are unsustainable without independent evidence. It emphasized that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.
ITAT Mumbai deletes Section 69 additions holding that third-party excel sheets and statements without corroborative evidence lack evidentiary value. Reopening based on unverified data and denial of cross-examination violates natural justice; entire additions quashed.
The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The issue was whether an excessive delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Tribunal allowed condonation but imposed costs, balancing justice with procedural discipline.
The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
