Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Unexplained Cash Credits & Bogus Share Dealings — Kolkata ITAT Upholds 68 Additions in Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt Ltd Vs ITO; ITAT Upholds Section 68 Additions After Assessee Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness; Additions Upheld as Assessee Fails to Establish Genuineness of Share Transactions; ITAT Confirms Section […]
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
Aveva Solutions India LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) DRP Route Cannot Extend Limitation: Assessment Beyond Section 153 Limit Struck Down by ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal examined the core legal issue of limitation for passing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in a Transfer Pricing case. Assessee contended that once the assessment year is 2021-22, the statutory time […]
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
The Tribunal found that sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner when reopening is beyond the three-year period prescribed by the amended law. Because the approval was taken from the Pr. CIT, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction and was invalidated.
The judgment confirmed that Section 11(2) of the EPF Act creates a first charge that overrides SARFAESI’s priority clause. Thus, provident fund contributions, interest, penalties, and damages must be paid before clearing secured creditors’ dues.
The SC invalidated 50-year age and 25-year practice requirements for advocates and CAs, reaffirming merit-based eligibility and protecting tribunal efficiency.
Raipur ITAT remanded the section 68 addition of ₹14.3 lakh, observing that NFAC/CIT(A) failed to examine confirmations, ITRs, or facts. The order lacked independent reasoning and was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
