The Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Delhi deleted a long-term capital gains addition based on entries in a third-party seized diary. The Tribunal relied on earlier final orders in related cases where the same diary was found to lack evidentiary value.
ITAT Delhi accepted the assessee’s contention that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The ruling restricted the addition to the exempt income of ₹2.63 lakh despite a higher Rule 8D computation.
The Madras High Court held that reimbursements made to a foreign subsidiary for online advertising expenses were not included within the statutory scope of equalisation levy. The refund rejection order was set aside for reconsideration.
The service tax demand arose from differences between income tax records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal ruled that Form 26AS, which formed the basis of the investigation, required proper evaluation before confirming liability.
The Supreme Court declined to examine the Revenue’s challenge after noting that an intra-court appeal remedy existed under the Karnataka High Court Act. The merits of the assessment dispute were left open.
The High Court held that the statutory requirement of issuing a draft assessment order could not be bypassed by issuing a final order accompanied by tax demand and penalty proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a 200% GST penalty imposed for transport of goods with an expired e-way bill. Considering the brief 50-minute delay beyond the extension window and absence of any allegation of tax evasion, the Court substituted the penalty with a token fine of Rs. 10,000.
he Tribunal held that accepted on-money receipts from earlier years could partly explain cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. It granted telescoping relief for 50% of the disputed addition under Section 68.
The ITAT Delhi held that LTCG exemption could not be denied merely because the shares were classified as a penny stock. The addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to price rigging, entry operators, or manipulation activities.
