The Tribunal examined cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and accepted explanations relating to past savings and business collections. Only the agricultural income claim was remanded for limited verification.
The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
The Assessing Officer alleged incorrect claim of stamp duty expenditure without identifying any such entry in the accounts. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding it to be based on presumption.
The ITAT restored an ex-parte assessment where LTCG was added mechanically without hearing the taxpayer. The ruling reinforces that denial of natural justice vitiates capital gains assessments.
The Court ruled that Section 17A lawfully requires prior approval before investigating decisions taken in official capacity. It clarified that the provision balances anti-corruption enforcement with protection against vexatious probes.
The Supreme Court held that gains arising from the sale of shares of a foreign company deriving substantial value from Indian assets are taxable in India. The ruling confirms that indirect transfer provisions override treaty claims when Indian assets are the real source of value.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that bail in fraudulent GST Input Tax Credit allowed since trial is not likely to be completed in near future and detention in lock-up not likely to serve any purpose.
The ruling holds that capital gains from offshore structures can be taxed in India when facts show substance over form. The key takeaway is that tax treaties do not protect arrangements leading to double non-taxation.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance of entire business losses by Assessing Officer without pointing out specific defects is not permissible. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed and order set aside.
The Court ruled that refunds arising from statutory pre-deposits must follow the specific appellate provisions, holding the High Court’s reliance on the general refund section unnecessary.
