Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that once income is estimated by rejecting books, no further addition can be made; ₹31.55 lakh added in liquor business case deleted.
Saroj Devi Haldiya vs. ITO: The ITAT Jaipur overturned an Rs.75 lakh addition under S. 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, mechanical approval, and a severe violation of natural justice (two-day notice).
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹5.73 crore addition u/s 68, holding HUF proved loan identity, creditworthiness, genuineness, and repayment with interest.
ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of Air Con Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., deleting a ₹62,00,000 addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based solely on notings in an undated loose paper seized from a third party’s residence.
Tribunal held that the enhanced leave encashment limit of ₹25 lakh, notified by CBDT on 24 May 2023, applies retrospectively to non-government employees. The assessment order was set aside, granting full exemption benefit to the retired SBI officer.
Upholding the CIT(A)’s decision, the ITAT confirmed that the charitable trusts claim for exemption on ₹2.45 crore application of income could not be denied. The ruling establishes that the registration granted under Section 12AA, even if initially delayed, holds legal force for the current assessment year, nullifying the AOs attempt to tax voluntary contributions.
ITAT quashes Rs.8.8 Cr penalty u/s 271G on Atul Ltd.. Penalty applies for non-furnishing TP docs, not for TPO’s rejection of the assessee’s benchmarking method. Cites Delhi HC precedent.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.
