The ITAT Dehradun held that cash turnover in a petrol pump business during demonetisation could not be disregarded entirely. Considering the facts of the case, it reduced the addition under Section 68 to a lump sum of Rs.5 lakh.
The ITAT Dehradun remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC after observing that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
CESTAT Delhi held that transportation and distribution of newspapers by road constituted services covered under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that incidental loading and unloading activities did not alter the essential character of the service.
ITAT Surat held that additions relating to credit card payments and cash deposits could not be sustained when the assessee had explained them through sales of Amway products and commission income. The Tribunal found that these details had been overlooked by the tax authorities.
The ITAT Ranchi held that additions for unsecured loans could not survive in the lender’s hands when the recipient company had already disclosed the entire amount as income. The Revenue’s inability to rebut this factual finding led to dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that opening balances and share application money converted into loans from earlier years fall outside the scope of Section 68 for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition after finding factual and legal infirmities in the assessment.
The Madras High Court remanded an ex parte assessment arising from a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch after finding that the assessee should be allowed to present its case. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid where the disputed amounts represented sale proceeds already disclosed and offered to tax. The Tribunal ruled that no income had escaped assessment in such circumstances.
The ITAT Mumbai held that settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme does not extinguish the legal existence of a reassessment order. Limitation under Section 154 must therefore be computed from the reassessment order, making the rectification application maintainable.
