The ITAT Bangalore held that interest earned on compulsory statutory deposits made under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act constitutes business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It set aside the orders denying the deduction.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after finding that a loose paper seized from a third party did not establish any live link with the assessee. The Court held that vague and non-specific material cannot justify reopening of assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence of escaped income. It quashed the Section 148 notices and Section 148A(3) orders after finding that the transactions were recorded in audited books and adequately explained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition after finding no direct link between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entries.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
The Karnataka High Court held that the petitioner must receive a real opportunity to respond before an adjudication order is passed. It quashed the GST demand and restored the proceedings for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54B after the Assessing Officer, in a remand report, verified that the land was used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) could not disregard those findings without contrary evidence.
The Madras High Court held that a cash loan advanced in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains legally recoverable. It ruled that the breach may attract statutory penalties but does not invalidate the underlying transaction or bar recovery through a civil suit.
CESTAT held that purchase invoices, GST returns, stock registers, and job work challans sufficiently established lawful ownership of the seized gold. The Tribunal ruled that the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act had been discharged, making confiscation and penalties unsustainable.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A without issuing prior notice violated the principles of natural justice. It quashed the blocking order while permitting fresh action in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
