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.
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 Tribunal ruled that accepting share capital and unsecured loans without proper verification violates Section 68 requirements. It upheld the Principal CITs revision order, stating that failure to investigate renders the order prejudicial to revenue.
On February 17, 2026, the Reserve Bank of India released draft Directions on Foreign Exchange Dealings of Authorised Persons for public consultation, inviting comments until March 10, 2026. The draft, issued under FEMA, 1999 and the RBI Act, aims to refine and modernise the regulatory framework governing Authorised Dealers (AD Category-I banks and AD Category-III […]
The discussion paper suggests stronger recording of CoC deliberations, structured approval of CIRP costs, and clearer roles in delayed claims. It also proposes excluding related operational creditors to safeguard independence.
The 2025 amendment broadens eligibility under Section 233, allowing more small, start-up, and unlisted companies to use the Regional Director route. Auditor certification and compliance safeguards are mandated.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the surviving limitation period available after applying TOLA and Supreme Court directions. As a result, the reassessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a public company failed to appoint a woman director within the statutory six-month period. Though the default was later rectified, penalties were levied for the period of non-compliance under Section 172.
Despite voluminous documentation filed during assessment and appeal, the authorities concluded that no evidence was produced. The Tribunal found this approach grossly negligent and deleted the entire purchase addition.
