The Delhi ITAT deleted a disallowance of Rs.1.22 crore, ruling that charges paid to the Stock Exchange for margin shortfall are regulatory fees, not penalties for offenses prohibited by law. Following Delhi High Court precedent, the Tribunal held these payments are allowable commercial business expenditure under Section 37(1)
ITAT Delhi held that cash-in-hand reflected in audited books remains valid even if no return was filed for the prior year, deleting the entire unexplained cash addition.
Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the Tribunal held that granting a consolidated, template-style approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D is illegal. The key takeaway is that the mandatory approval for a search assessment (Sec. 153C/153D) requires independent application of mind for each assessment year.
Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Rectification Can’t Rewrite Scrutiny Order — ITAT Quashes 80P Disallowance for Co-op Society; ITAT Bangalore sets aside rectification disallowing 80P deduction – delay condoned for co-operative society Assessee, a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, filed return for AY 2020-21 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) […]
Appellate Tribunal dismissed FEMA proceedings after the ED could not provide authenticated HSBC Geneva bank statements. The ruling emphasizes that unverified evidence cannot support prosecution.
The tribunal ruled that commissions earned through LIC policies linked to a scheduled offence were rightly treated as proceeds of crime, justifying provisional attachment of property.
The J&K High Court set aside a GST demand of ₹15.44 Lakh, ruling that authorities must consider a taxpayer’s reply to a Show Cause Notice if received before the final assessment order is passed.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nippon Tubes Limited, ruling that the detention of goods was justified because the movement of materials to a job worker lacked the mandatory GST delivery challan (Rule 55) and e-way bill, despite the existence of a master tax invoice.
Bombay HC clarified Section 276C(2), holding that mere failure to pay self-assessment tax is not willful evasion, quashing prosecution after tax was paid belatedly.
