The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for rejecting books under Section 145(3). It remanded the matter for fresh examination of this issue.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
The Tribunal held that LTCG cannot be treated as bogus merely based on investigation reports. It ruled that documented transactions through banking and stock exchange channels prove genuineness.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The case involves whether limitation for assessment can be extended based on a DTAA information request. The High Court held such extension invalid as the request covered pre-2011 periods outside DTAA scope. The key takeaway is that invalid references cannot extend statutory limitation.
The Competition Commission found prima facie evidence that breeder agreements restricted farmers from selling to competitors or using alternative breeds. It held that such clauses may constitute vertical restraints, warranting a detailed investigation. The case highlights concerns over limited market access and potential anti-competitive practices.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering additional documents.
The Tribunal held that where interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance is warranted. It applied the presumption that investments are made from own funds.
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The matter concerns two appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015–16 and 2019–20. Both appeals arise from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since […]
The Bombay High Court held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a company that ceased to exist after amalgamation are void. All related notices and orders were set aside. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity.
