The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice where no serious prejudice is caused.
The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gains merely because they hold all its shares. The Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity unless fraud or sham arrangements are proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Mumbai ITAT held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a deceased person are legally void once the department is informed about the death. Both the assessment and appellate orders were quashed as nullities.
The Pune ITAT ruled that purchases cannot automatically be disallowed merely because suppliers failed to reply to notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh verification after considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Delhi ITAT held that activities relating to environmental protection, farming awareness, and sustainability education qualify under the preservation of environment limb of Section 2(15). The Tribunal ruled that such activities are not hit by the restrictive proviso applicable to general public utility cases.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years based on the same hawala purchase material already examined during scrutiny amounted to a mere change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were therefore quashed as invalid.
ITAT Mumbai observed that the charitable trust had filed its original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication of the exemption claim instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
