The ITAT Mumbai deleted additions under Section 69 after holding that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ruled that third-party statements cannot be relied upon against an assessee without allowing effective cross-examination.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
The Bangalore ITAT held that deduction under Section 80IA can be granted only if the income is genuinely derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. Mere classification of income under other sources does not automatically entitle an assessee to deduction.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT held that charitable trusts publishing and selling educational books do not lose Section 11 exemption merely because they earn surplus. Educational publishing activities were held distinct from commercial business activities.
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
ROC Uttar Pradesh penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2019-20 under Section 92(4). The ruling highlights strict consequences for non-filing of statutory annual returns under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Uttar Pradesh dropped penalty proceedings after confirming that Form MGT-14 had already been filed for approval of accounts. The ruling highlights that penalties under Section 117(2) cannot survive once compliance is verified.
The Court held that shareholder resolutions seeking removal of directors under Section 284 are independent of Section 188 requirements relating to circulation of members’ resolutions.
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties on a company and its directors for non-filing of financial statements for FY 2019-20. The order highlights that incorrect attachments in Form AOC-4 cannot cure statutory non-compliance under Section 137 of the Companies Act.
