The tribunal held that brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation remain in the books until fully absorbed and must be allowed as reduction under Section 115JB. The ruling rejects the Revenue’s stand and upholds the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition.
Court held that undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B may be computed using both seized search material and other information connected to it. The ruling confirms the Assessing Officer’s power to rely on post-search enquiries if they relate to search evidence.
The High Court ruled that undisclosed income can be assessed using both search material and other information relatable to it, confirming the ITAT’s interpretation of Section 158-BB.
The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner’s suo motu revision under Section 263 was unjustified, confirming that donations to other charitable trusts qualify as application of income under Section 11.
The High Court examined a claim that cash recovered during raids originated from a 2008 family settlement. The authorities challenged this, citing suspicion of illegal gratification and procedural gaps.
The Court ruled that PoK is part of India, making cross-LoC trade intra-state and taxable. GST notices were upheld, and traders must pursue statutory remedies.
The draft Master Circular consolidates all SEBI and IFSCA guidelines governing Broker Dealers and Clearing Members in IFSCs. It aims to simplify compliance and create a unified regulatory framework under the new CMI Regulations, 2025.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid when the AO fails to show how the assessee withheld material facts. The AO merely copied Investigation Wing inputs without independent reasoning. The entire reassessment was declared void for violating the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
