Genuine sale was established through invoices, stock records, ledgers, bank proofs, and direct buyer confirmations, leaving no room for Section 68 additions. ITAT held that when sales are proved, no commission can be presumed under Section 69C.
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Tribunal held that notices under section 153C issued without independent satisfaction by the AO are invalid, quashing the consequent assessments for AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
As Bitcoin dips below ₹100,000, retail investors sell in fear while institutions quietly accumulate, signaling a critical market divergence and potential future growth.
ITAT Mumbai confirmed loans from Hallow Securities and Dhankalash were genuine, rejecting Revenue’s allegations of shell-company loans. Interest claimed on these loans was also allowed. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in section 68 assessments.
The Bombay ITAT allowed a 363-day delay in filing appeals caused by misdirected emails, emphasizing liberal interpretation of sufficient cause and procedural fairness. Appeals were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The new labour code unifies 29 laws to create uniform definitions for wages, employees, and payment timelines. The ruling strengthens equal pay, mandates faster settlements, and ensures no wages fall below the national floor. It enhances worker protection through consistent compliance rules for all establishments.
The Tribunal held that a 93-day delay caused by a tax professional’s mistaken assumption that the quantum appeal was already filed constituted a bona fide error. With no malafide intent shown, the delay was condoned, and both ex parte orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same grounds already examined in the original scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. With no new material on record, the reassessment was found invalid. The ruling reinforces that the AO cannot revisit an earlier view in the guise of section 147 proceedings.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty value must be taken as on the year of agreement when part consideration is paid through banking channels. Since the buyer paid in 2011 and received allotment in 2012, adopting 2017 stamp value was invalid. The ruling reaffirms strict application of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b).
