The ITAT Agra held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee had already disclosed commission income in the income tax return. The Tribunal granted relief after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the declared income source.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of six years for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1). The Tribunal ruled that the amended ten-year reopening period could not revive time-barred cases.
The Delhi High Court held that tax authorities should ordinarily grant complete stay of disputed demand when the issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that once transactions are treated as bogus, there is no basis for separately allowing expenses reflected in gross profit. Telescoping was therefore restricted to net income disclosed in the return.
The Delhi High Court ruled that deposits arising from cash sales did not render genuine import purchases unexplained. The Court emphasized that the transactions were supported by customs and banking documents.
The Gujarat High Court set aside a Section 148 notice after finding no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the seized third-party documents. The Court held that reassessment based on vague material and assumptions was unsustainable.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding that rejection of books and addition for suppressed production were invalid where the Assessing Officer relied only on estimated yield comparisons. The ruling reiterates that tax assessments require tangible supporting material.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld deletion of ₹15.94 crore addition after finding no adverse material supporting allegations of suppressed production and unaccounted sales. The Court reaffirmed that assessments cannot be based on mere assumptions or estimated yield comparisons.
The NCLT Mumbai approved a resolution plan after holding that EPFO claims based on provisional and pro-rata calculations without adjudication under Sections 7A, 7Q, and 14B could not be admitted in CIRP. The ruling clarified that only crystallized statutory liabilities determined through due process are admissible.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
