The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added when sales are accepted. The only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that attachment under PMLA cannot stand without evidence showing flow of tainted funds. The key takeaway is that mere suspicion or indirect linkage is insufficient to sustain attachment.
The Supreme Court of India held that parties cannot enforce rights in execution after abandoning earlier suits on the same issue. The key takeaway is that non-prosecution of prior claims can bar relief even if res judicata does not apply.
The Karnataka High Court held that property contributed as capital to a partnership becomes firm property. The individual or family rights cannot be claimed once ownership is transferred to the firm.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in compliance with DRP directions cannot be revised under Section 263. It clarified that such orders are not erroneous as the Assessing Officer is bound by DRP’s binding instructions.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
The Court held that increased financial liability cannot override the right to just compensation. It refused to revisit earlier rulings granting solatium and interest.
The petitioner’s claim that delay was caused by a tax consultant was rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was not perverse and required no interference.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. Lack of participation led to confirmation of additions made by tax authorities.
The Tribunal upheld attachment as no documentary evidence was provided to establish the source of funds. It held that unexplained money can be treated as proceeds of crime.
