The ITAT held that where investments are fully backed by substantial own funds and a rational suo-motu disallowance is made, Rule 8D cannot be mechanically invoked. The Revenue’s attempt to make an additional disallowance was rejected.
The Tribunal held that limitation under Section 153 overrides the DRP timeline under Section 144C. As the assessment was completed beyond the statutory outer limit, it was quashed as invalid.
While restoring the appeals, the ITAT directed expeditious disposal and warned against avoidable adjournments. The key takeaway is that condonation is granted to enable justice, not to prolong litigation.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte capital gains addition could not be sustained where the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity. Considering comparable treatment in a related case, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
GSTAT revoked the staggered filing requirement after reassessing portal capacity. Appeals can now be filed freely without phase-wise restrictions from 18 December 2025.
CESTAT held that valuation under Rule 10A fails where the department cannot prove that goods were manufactured as job work, reaffirming that free supply of some inputs alone is insufficient.
The Tribunal held that a surrender during survey cannot justify additions without supporting material. Statements under Section 133A lack evidentiary value unless backed by records. Additions based solely on surrender were deleted.
Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Section 153.
This explains the statutory conditions, approvals, and filings required for issuing securities through preferential allotment under the Companies Act, 2013.
The ITAT held that additional evidence filed under Rule 46A cannot be brushed aside without examination. Since the documents were vital to Section 68 requirements, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
