The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assessment provisions of Section 153C. ITAT reaffirmed that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by regular scrutiny proceedings.
2026 Guidelines streamline selection of Insolvency Professionals for IRP, RP, Liquidator, and Bankruptcy Trustee roles, ensuring timely and efficient insolvency proceedings.
Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed bank accounts with explained credits. The Tribunal deleted ₹3.29 crore addition for lack of incriminating material.
Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
The Delhi ITAT held that large cash deposits and investigation wing information alone do not create valid reason to believe for reopening assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction is invalid in law.
This guide explains all major MSME subsidy schemes running in Uttar Pradesh in 2026, including capital subsidies, interest benefits, ODOP support, PMEGP, and export incentives for entrepreneurs and small businesses.
The Kolkata ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income addition is based on peak credit estimation. The Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not automatically prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against reopening of assessment where the Gujarat High Court had upheld reassessment proceedings based on Investigation Wing material alleging accommodation entries. The case reaffirmed that prima facie material is sufficient at the reopening stage.
Gujarat HC held that reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was valid where Assessing Officer received fresh investigation material alleging accommodation entries. Court observed that prima facie tangible material is sufficient at reopening stage.
Bombay High Court upheld deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) where there was only short deduction of TDS and the recipients had already paid taxes. The Court also reiterated that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) operates retrospectively from 01.04.2005.
