The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty requires strict compliance with statutory conditions, and absence of proof of Form 68 filing disentitles relief.
The Calcutta High Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely due to disagreement with the Assessing Officers view. Since the AO conducted proper inquiry and followed CBDT instructions, revision was quashed and LTCG treatment on unlisted shares was upheld.
The ITAT Raipur held that prior to 1 June 2015, there was no enabling provision under Section 200A to levy late filing fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns. The Tribunal ruled the demand for A.Y. 2013-14 unsustainable and deleted the levy.
ITAT Pune held that failure to deposit the entire amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat Section 54F claim if full investment is made within the stipulated period. The ruling follows Karnataka High Court precedent. The addition of ₹91.45 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid under Section 149. As a result, the entire reassessment based on alleged accommodation entries was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that once income is declared under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, individual cash deposits cannot be separately added. The sustained addition was set aside and deleted.
The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the surviving limitation period available after applying TOLA and Supreme Court directions. As a result, the reassessment proceedings were declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that CPC wrongly applied the outdated ₹3 lakh ceiling despite Notification No. 31/2023 enhancing the limit to ₹25 lakh. Since the retirement benefit was within the revised cap, full exemption under Section 10(10AA) was directed.
