Mere issue of notice under section 142(1) would not confer jurisdiction to levy interest under section 234A.
High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it: Supreme court
AO is precluded from making addition under section 68 doubting the creditworthiness of the investors on mere surmises
The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus .
AAR Ruling on GST on reimbursement of expenses and salary to Indian Branch (Liason office) by its Foreign Company