Somabhai Mohandas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The case of Somabhai Mohandas Patel vs. ITO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad involved an appeal by a taxpayer, Somabhai Mohandas Patel, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upholding the addition of ₹10,33,012 to his income. This addition was made […]
The Allahabad High Court has stayed coercive action against Varun Enterprises, who was penalized for not including a “biltee” number on tax invoices.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a GST assessment order is invalid and can be challenged if it lacks a Document Identification Number (DIN), even after an appeal is rejected.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-compliance with tax notices due to notices being sent to wrong email IDs and the demise of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant constitutes sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication
ITAT Delhi directs the exclusion of the Rs. 84.95 lakh Transfer Pricing adjustment from the Book Profits (u/s 115JB), citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd. that the AO cannot tamper with the net profit determined under the Companies Act, except for specified adjustments.
Summary of nine IGST notifications from September 2025: New rate schedules (5% to 40%), IGST exemption for goods, service rate revisions, and e-commerce tax rules.
Delhi ITAT allowed an assessee’s appeal, holding that an addition for bogus purchases couldn’t be sustained solely on the supplier’s wrongly reported GST data (Rs. 76.10 lakh).
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits during demonetization, already reflected in the assessee’s books, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Entire Rs.53.51 lakh addition was deleted, ensuring no double taxation.
ITAT Delhi Strikes Down Addition: Sale share cannot be treated as an unsecured loan (u/s 68). The tribunal deletes the Rs. 1.41 Cr addition on sale consideration receipt, remanding the s. 54F deduction claim for limited verification.
ITAT Delhi ruled that an AO’s belief based on incorrect assumptions—such as the non-filing of a return—cannot form a valid basis for reopening. Cash deposits fully disclosed in audited accounts were held legitimate.
