ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that development right of a defaulting developer do not constitute ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of corporate debtor. Further, since the said development agreement stood terminated prior to initiation of CIRP no subsisting or enforceable right survived in favour of corporate debtor.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR by evaluating defence evidence and deciding intention prematurely. It ruled that the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence, requiring trial.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if no fresh material emerges. Key takeaway: AO cannot reopen concluded assessments on pre-existing facts.
Tribunal held that additions for excess gold stock under Section 69A could not stand when purchases, job-work gold, and export stock were fully supported by invoices, confirmations, and bank records. The ruling emphasizes that reconciled and verified records override survey-time assumptions.
ITAT Chennai quashed a reassessment notice under Section 148, holding that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment based solely on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material. This safeguards taxpayers from arbitrary reassessments.
The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
The court ruled that requiring an Assistant Registrar’s recommendation for stamp duty exemption under Section 9A is unnecessary. The statutory registration certificate itself suffices, making the Memo issued by the Principal Secretary illegal.
The Court ruled that failing to repay a loan does not amount to cheating without proof of fraudulent intent at inception, quashing the FIR and reaffirming that civil disputes cannot be criminalized.
The Court held that loan transactions create only a debtor–creditor relationship, not entrustment, and thus no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out, quashing the criminal proceedings.
