ITAT Delhi held that commission earned by a cooperative society from marketing sugarcane grown by its members qualifies as business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), not as income from other sources.
SEBI streamlined RPT disclosure (Oct 2025), introducing threshold-based relaxation. Transactions up to ₹1 crore are fully exempt, while smaller RPTs use the simplified Annexure-13A format.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
The EPCG scheme allows manufacturers to meet their Export Obligation via sales to a third-party exporter (Para 5.04, FTP 2023). Goods must be exported as is with strict documentation and financial flow compliance.
The LEI is a unique 20-character code mandated by RBI/SEBI/IRDAI for non-individuals engaging in large financial transactions, derivatives, and borrowing over Rs.5 Cr. Learn the application process.
The ITAT Rajkot deleted a ₹61 lakh addition made under Section 69A, ruling the funds belonged to clients of the assessee who acted as a sub-share broker. The Tribunal held that Section 69A is inapplicable as the assessee was not the owner of the money, which was meant for derivative transactions.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹47 lakh bogus LTCG addition, holding that ‘human probability’ cannot override transactions conducted through stock exchange, demat, and banking channels. Mere high profit does not make a transaction bogus.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
The ITAT Panaji set aside the NFAC order that confirmed a ₹9.81 crore tax addition after finding the NFAC failed to consider the assessees detailed online submissions. The key takeaway is that an adverse order passed without considering key submissions is invalid and violates natural justice principles.
