The dispute involved unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that deposits partly belonged to the principal, reducing the addition.
The issue was whether addition can be made only on survey admission. The Tribunal held that without corroborative evidence, such addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evidence is improper and directed reassessment based on correct valuation.
ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers taxation even without actual rental income.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The issue was whether equal punishment must apply to co-delinquents. The Court held that higher responsibility justifies stricter punishment, restoring dismissal and rejecting parity claims.
The Supreme Court held that where the Competent Authority finds no basis for seizure, the foundation of the SCN collapses. It ruled that proceedings cannot continue without jurisdictional facts.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
A.K.G. Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Termination Valid, Blacklisting Invalid – SC Separates Consequences, Enforces Strict Natural Justice The Supreme Court upheld the termination of contract but set aside the blacklisting order, holding that blacklisting is not an automatic consequence of termination and requires independent […]
