AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that findings from a 2005 survey on liaison offices cannot be mechanically applied to assess taxability for a later branch office structure, directing a fresh examination of the actual functions.
The Tribunal found the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to be cryptic, lacking a proper analysis of business activities between the assessee and comparables. It directed a fresh examination of comparability and the Arm's Length Price (ALP) computation.
The ITAT has clarified that notional rental income from shared office premises cannot be taxed without evidence of actual receipt.
The ITAT ruled that missing PAN details for donors do not justify treating nominal donations as non-voluntary contributions, allowing for final Section 12AB registration.
The ITAT determined that share premium received from verified investors cannot be treated as bogus cash credit, thus deleting a ₹45 lakh addition.
The ITAT upheld the addition of ₹7.5 crore under Section 69A, citing the assessee's failure to satisfactorily explain the source of the seized cash.
The CESTAT quashed the absolute confiscation of a gold biscuit, ruling that foreign markings alone do not prove gold smuggling without additional evidence.
The ITAT upheld an addition under Section 69A concerning ₹7.5 crore seized cash that was not satisfactorily explained by the assessee.
The ITAT has ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) must await the resolution of the corresponding quantum appeal.
The ITAT determined that the assessable value under the Customs Act should not be used to justify additions under Section 69C without proof of actual expenditure.
This guide provides insights into the reverse charge mechanism applicable to services acquired from government bodies under GST.
The ITAT directed NFAC to provide a final opportunity for the assessee to justify claims of unexplained expenditure and cash credits totalling ₹2.35 crore.
The CESTAT ruled that the valuation of plastic bottle caps should not follow Rule 8's provisions as the caps were used by the principal manufacturer, Marico.