The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to alleged penny stock manipulation. Documentary records, banking transactions, and Demat evidence supported the genuineness of the share transactions.
Tribunal ruled that once DSIR certifies R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB), the Assessing Officer cannot disregard the claim without following the statutory procedure. The decision reinforces the importance of DSIR certification in weighted deduction disputes.
The Jodhpur ITAT condoned a 30-day delay in filing an income tax appeal after holding that the delay fell within the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exemption period. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court held that the assessing officer misconstrued CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2024 while rejecting carry forward of loss due to a seven-day filing delay. The Court directed the authorities to condone the delay and process the return according to law.
The Delhi ITAT held that advertisement and marketing expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without evidence of an arrangement with the associated enterprise. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and rejected the application of the Bright Line Test.
The NCLT Mumbai held that a director diverted rental income from corporate debtor properties through forged leave and license agreements. The Tribunal ordered refund of the diverted amounts with 12% interest and referred the matter to the IBBI for further action.
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to entertain a GST writ petition. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s reliance on the Glaxo Smith Kline precedent.
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 73 GST order and attachment proceedings, holding that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP after the Calcutta High Court upheld the ITAT finding that reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO had only suspicion and no valid reason to believe income escaped assessment.
The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounted only to suspicion and not a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
