ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject transaction value. The Tribunal quashed the demand, confiscation, and penalties after finding no proof of additional consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that estimating income at 8% of turnover was excessive where the assessee’s accounts were tax-audited and past profit history reflected lower margins. The Tribunal restricted the addition by adopting a 4% profit rate based on the facts of the case.
The NCLAT held that unregistered profit-sharing agreements do not create leasehold or occupancy rights in immovable property. The tribunal upheld eviction of the occupant from the corporate debtor’s hotel premises during CIRP.
While approving the resolution plan, NCLT clarified that exemptions relating to taxes, duties, and statutory compliances must be obtained from the competent authorities separately. Approval of the plan does not itself waive statutory liabilities.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that transfer pricing adjustments may have been added twice while computing the assessee’s income. The issue requires fresh examination after granting an opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the assessee could not establish the authenticity of the purchase transactions underlying the LTCG claim. The inability to satisfactorily explain the acquisition of shares led to denial of exemption under Section 10(38) and confirmation of the addition under Section 68.
