The Tribunal ruled that issuing a Section 143(2) notice before communicating reasons for reopening deprives the assessee of its statutory right to object. This violation invalidated the entire reassessment for the second year. The decision underscores that procedural fairness in reopening is a statutory mandate, not optional.
The court ruled that requiring an Assistant Registrar’s recommendation for stamp duty exemption under Section 9A is unnecessary. The statutory registration certificate itself suffices, making the Memo issued by the Principal Secretary illegal.
The Court ruled that failing to repay a loan does not amount to cheating without proof of fraudulent intent at inception, quashing the FIR and reaffirming that civil disputes cannot be criminalized.
The Court held that loan transactions create only a debtor–creditor relationship, not entrustment, and thus no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out, quashing the criminal proceedings.
Tribunal upheld 153C jurisdiction based on seized documents and statements, but rejected the AO’s full bogus-purchase addition, sustaining only a 10% profit estimation after book rejection under section 145(3).
Explains that revenue records alone don’t qualify land as agricultural; actual use determines tax treatment. Key takeaway: Land used commercially may attract capital gains tax despite agricultural classification.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules routine cash deposits of small traders cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, even if no return is filed.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
