The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.’s case for fresh assessment, directing the AO to reverify ₹14.39 crore in unsecured loans and creditors under Section 68.
The Tribunal deleted an addition of capital gains, noting the AO’s error in taxing the entire sale consideration in one co-owner’s hands when her actual share was minimal and below the basic exemption limit.
The ITAT Ahmedabad annulled reassessment proceedings as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and clarified in Rajeev Bansal (SC).
The Tribunal held that where an assessee’s accounting method is consistent, and gross margins remain stable over the years, the AO cannot substitute his subjective judgment for the businessman’s discretion without proving the expenditure is bogus or for non-business purposes.
ITAT Chandigarh holds Rs.25 lakh leave encashment limit prospective (w.e.f. 01.04.2023), restricting a PSU retiree’s exemption claim for AY 2021-22 to Rs.3 lakh under S. 10(10AA)(ii)
ITAT Chandigarh deletes ₹1.12 Cr addition for Northern Royalty Co. u/s 153C. Assessee’s revised profit (14-15%) was far higher than the 1.47% profit indicated by seized mining records. Arbitrary 18% NP rate rejected; consistency upheld. Revised return accepted.
Mohammad Iqbal Siddiqi Vs Special Director Directorate of Enforcement (Appellate Tribunal Under Safema At Delhi) NRI’s Agricultural Land Confiscation Set Aside, Penalty Halved- Mens Rea Irrelevant, But Penalty Moderated-FEMA Omission No Shield: Tribunal Upholds Validity of Action, But Quashes Confiscation for Proportionality Background This Appeal arose from the order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the […]
The Supreme Court ruled that a cheque dishonour complaint is maintainable against a Trustee who signed the cheque, even if the Trust is not arrayed as an accused, as a Trust is not a juristic person under the NI Act.
The ITAT Hyderabad in ITO Vs. SR Peddi Estates India Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.39 crore addition made during reassessment. The Tribunal ruled that bank credits
The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the relevant year because the JDA explicitly stated possession was deemed given only upon handing over the landowners’ built-up share. This means Section 45(1) cannot be invoked until actual possession or consideration is received, overriding the AO’s reliance on stamp duty valuation.
