The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 44AD, recognizing the small kirana shop’s sales and deposits as genuine business income. Bank deposits corresponded with daily sales, and withdrawals matched purchase requirements, showing a consistent business pattern.
ITAT held that discretionary trusts with unknown beneficiary shares must be taxed at the maximum marginal rate unless statutory exceptions apply, restoring the matter for verification.
The High Court held that forklifts and cranes with on/off-road capability fall within Section 2(28) and require compliance with registration and tax provisions. Machinery designed for off-highway use but capable of road travel cannot claim exemption.
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid since notices and the final order were issued in the name of a dead assessee despite the Department being informed. Key takeaway: assessments against deceased persons are void ab initio.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The ITAT quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, observing that the foundational notice was issued after the permissible date. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines under TOLA cannot be extended retroactively. Subsequent orders based on the invalid notice were held without jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court upheld that both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers can issue reassessment notices under Section 148, dismissing claims of FAO-exclusive authority.
SC confirmed an auction sale after judgment debtors failed to raise partial-sale objections at correct stage, emphasizing strict compliance with Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
