ITAT Delhi clarified that Section 153A is not meant to reassess completed years in absence of seized evidence. The ₹6.11 lakh addition was therefore held to be without jurisdiction.
The law recognises a Hindu Undivided Family as a creature of birth, not agreement, with the Karta deriving authority solely from coparcenary status. Management rights arise by operation of Hindu law and cannot be created or transferred by consent.
While sustaining additions on merits, ITAT Delhi restricted taxable income to a lump-sum 8% of Section 68-type amounts. The estimation was granted as a one-time relief and expressly not treated as a precedent.
Income from property blended into an HUF remains taxable in the individual’s hands under section 64(2). The ruling highlights that blending cannot be used as a tool for income shifting.
Gourav Chand Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Delhi ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining addition of ₹50.45 lakh towards cash deposits and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The Tribunal noted that though the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1), the assessment was completed in undue haste within […]
The Tribunal clarified that the institution existed solely for education and had no unrelated profit-oriented objects. Hence, the stricter test laid down in New Noble Educational Society did not apply.
The Tribunal admitted a gift deed filed for the first time before it, noting that the donor was no longer alive. The ₹26.36 lakh addition was remanded for verification of the deed and surrounding circumstances.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowing outstanding sub-contract expenses payable under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit without specific reasoning and without pointing out defects in books of accounts is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and disallowance is deleted.
The Tribunal quashed the Assessing Officer’s action of taxing the entire purchase value after invoking Section 145(3). Only estimated profit embedded in such purchases, if higher than declared profit, can be brought to tax.
Kerala High Court held that Competition Commission of India [CCI] possess jurisdiction for investigating anti-competitive practices in telecommunication sector inspite of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 regulations.
