The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The ITAT Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling against additions for ICDS adjustments, provision reversals (including liquidated damages and project costs), and Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The Tribunal held that subsequent reversal of provisions cannot be taxed again if the original provision was disallowed in earlier years, thereby preventing double taxation and upholding consistent accounting treatment.
The Kerala High Court cautions against arbitrary Waqf property declarations, restoring the Inquiry Commission in the 400-acre Munambam land dispute affecting hundreds of families.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
A checklist for business owners to choose the right injunction solicitor. Find experts with legal knowledge, strategic thinking, and a history of protecting businesses.
ROC Kanpur fined SEN HON LEE TECHNOLOGIES and three directors ₹3,50,000 for violating Section 173(1) by exceeding the 120-day limit between Board Meetings.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by M/s. Priyam Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] for M/s. Steadfast Shipping Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] meeting requirements of Section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations stands approved.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that common show cause notice and/or common order for different tax periods is impermissible. Accordingly, common order for assessment periods 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 is liable to be set aside and matter remanded back to respondent.
Madras High Court directs petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount and quashed impugned order since petitioner failed to furnish reply to GST SCN. Accordingly, court also directs to furnish reply within stipulated time period.
