The issue was how cryptocurrency income is classified for tax purposes. The framework holds that transfers fall under a dedicated VDA regime with a flat rate and strict loss rules.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
The RBI maintained a pause on interest rates while continuing a neutral stance. The decision signals confidence in low inflation and steady economic growth.
ITAT rejected the tax authority’s approach of increasing asset values on the assumption of appreciation. Fair market value under Section 56 must be based on book values as mandated by Rule 11UA.
The reassessment was challenged for want of proper approval. The Tribunal ruled that ritualistic sanction under Section 151 defeats jurisdiction and renders the reopening void.
The authority cancelled existing registration without invoking the procedure under Section 12AB(4). The Tribunal ruled that supersession of registration requires proof of specified violations and due process. In its absence, cancellation was illegal.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that repeated application under section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for taking refuge of moratorium with malafide intention to defeat recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT ruled that property transferred under a bona fide family settlement is outside the scope of Section 56(2)(vii). Such arrangements are not treated as taxable gifts even if formalised through a gift deed.
The assessee challenged jurisdiction for lack of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that once the belated return was invalid, assessment under Section 144 was lawful.
