ITAT Mumbai held that no TDS is liable to be deducted when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in the normal course of running of the restaurant/café. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in fully rejecting the assessee’s explanation linking cash deposits to business sales. However, due to incomplete substantiation, a limited addition of ₹8 lakh was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the government’s decision to canalise exports of beach sand minerals was a policy measure involving strategic resources. It ruled that such sovereign functions are excluded from the definition of enterprise under competition law.
The Court held that authorities cannot initiate confiscation under Section 130 without completing detention proceedings under Section 129. It ruled that bypassing statutory procedure renders the action invalid.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
ITAT held that share capital addition cannot be sustained where identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of investors are supported by documents. The Tribunal found no defect in CIT(A)’s order deleting most of the addition.
The Tribunal ruled that an unregistered agreement does not invalidate exemption if possession is taken and payment is made. The term purchase under Section 54 was interpreted broadly.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
