Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s deletions across multiple grounds. Regarding Section 68 additions on current liabilities and loans/advances, ITAT held these represented bona fide deposits and core cooperative society operations, not unexplained credits, following precedent from assessee's own case for AY 2018-19. Personal expenditure and Section 40A(7) disallowances were confirmed as deleted since amounts were already disallowed in computation, making AO's additions duplicative. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction denial was reversed as interest income from cooperative banks qualified under Section 80P(2)(d) per established precedents. CIT(A)'s consideration of explanations from existing financial records did not violate Rule 46A, as no new documentary evidence was introduced and first appellate authority possesses broad inquiry powers under Section 250(4).
ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s deletions across multiple grounds. Regarding Section 68 additions on current liabilities and loans/advances, ITAT held these represented bona fide deposits and core cooperative society operations, not unexplained credits, following precedent from assessee's own case for AY 2018-19. Personal expenditure and Section 40A(7) disallowances were confirmed as deleted since amounts were already disallowed in computation, making AO's additions duplicative. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction denial was reversed as interest income from cooperative banks qualified under Section 80P(2)(d) per established precedents. CIT(A)'s consideration of explanations from existing financial records did not violate Rule 46A, as no new documentary evidence was introduced and first appellate authority possesses broad inquiry powers under Section 250(4).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.