ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets aside dismissal and directs AO to treat demonetisation cash deposits as business turnover (if normal) and estimate income u/s 44AD instead of Section 69A addition.
The court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 ceases once a final order under Section 74 is issued. The ruling reinforces that subsequent challenges must focus on the final order, not interim measures.
Supreme Court affirmed that insolvency proceedings under IBC do not bar prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act. It held that criminal liability of directors continues independently. Ruling clarifies that both laws operate in separate spheres.
The Tribunal quashed penalty where the AO did not specify the exact limb of misreporting under Section 270A(9). It held that vague notices invalidate penalty proceedings. Key takeaway: specificity is mandatory for penalty levy.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 68 cannot apply to opening balances; remands ₹55.53 lakh addition for verification, directing AO to examine prior-year records and delete addition if no fresh credit arose during the year.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that failure to consider explanations violates natural justice. Key takeaway: fair hearing is essential even in faceless assessments.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
The issue was whether reassessment beyond three years is valid for small additions. ITAT held that without meeting the ₹50 lakh threshold under Section 149, the notice is void.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes ₹11.03 lakh penalty under Section 270A(9), holding that non-filing of return followed by filing under Section 148 amounts to under-reporting, not misreporting; no penalty when returned income is accepted without variation.
