The Bombay High Court held that a pending penalty appeal qualifies as a “dispute” under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Rejection solely for absence of assessment appeal was set aside
The Tribunal held that disallowance based solely on tax audit reporting required factual verification. The issue was remanded for examining whether the power liability provision was wrongly treated as contingent.
The Tribunal held that mere non-participation in inquiry and reliance on government-issued IEC and GSTIN cannot establish breach of CBLR obligations. Licence revocation and penalty were quashed for lack of evidence.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of ₹6 crore addition after lenders responded to notices under Section 133(6) and confirmed transactions. Verified evidence and absence of deficiencies proved loan genuineness.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The case involved additions for alleged suppressed sales and purchases based on seized digital material. The Tribunal ruled that once search material exists, the AO must invoke Section 148 with proper approval, making the 143(3) assessment legally unsustainable.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
Failure to disclose director changes, related party loans, and website details in the Board’s Report attracted penalties. Reduced fines were applied under small company provisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that balancing figure between the slump sale consideration and the value of identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights in the nature of an intangible asset, and depreciation thereon is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The ROC imposed penalty for incorrect authorised share capital and omission of transaction details in financial filings. Reduced penalties were applied under Section 446B as the entity qualified as a Small Company.
