The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot rest merely on information received from the Investigation Wing or Insight Portal. Since the Assessing Officer conducted no independent enquiry or verification, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
ITAT held that execution and registration of a sale deed completes the transfer for capital gains purposes. Delayed receipt of sale consideration or dishonoured cheques cannot postpone taxability when the registered transfer remains valid.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash payments made through agents for procuring paddy from farmers were covered by Rule 6DD exceptions. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte GST assessment order after the appeal period had expired. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply to the show cause notice.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of Rs. 1.25 crore through bank records, PPF withdrawals, and documented fund movements. Since the transactions were verifiable through banking channels, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
