The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the execution of a ₹1,087 crore arbitral award, ruling that a company’s allegation of fraud committed by its own officers (fraud on self) is not grounds to nullify a final award. The ruling restricts the scope of objections under Section 47 CPC to fraud vitiating the arbitral process itself, not internal corporate misconduct.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT confirmed the unexplained cash deposit addition of ₹32.22 lakh after dismissing the Assessee’s casual adjournment request and hearing the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities’ finding that the Assessee’s M-Pesa conduit claim was unsubstantiated by evidence.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, emphasizing that the Assessee deserved a proper opportunity to argue their case on merits despite missing the final notices.1 The matter was sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision, with the Assessee directed to cooperate fully.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
This analysis examines how Indian tax laws (Income Tax Act S. 11, 13 affect fee determination and tax-exempt status of religious bodies. It explores the constitutional tension between religious freedom (Arts. 25-28) and state regulation of commercial activities.
The ITAT Delhi set aside an addition of Rs.44.50 lakh, alleged as commission income on fund routing transactions, due to the CIT(A)’s failure to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for a fresh, de novo assessment to verify documents and provide reasoned findings, ensuring compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities’ action of treating the ₹2.55 lakh returned income as under-reported, as the return was filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice issued before the statutory due date. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal by deleting the addition made on cash deposits.1
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the attachment of ₹5.5 crore in assets belonging to an IAS officer’s family, ruling that the properties were acquired using laundered bribe money from the coal levy scam. Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent, the Tribunal held that even pre-offence assets can be attached as value-equivalent proceeds of crime under PMLA.
