ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding that the assessee had furnished complete details of investor companies and share allotment. The Tribunal held that verified share application money could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.
ITAT Delhi restored a Section 69A addition after holding that the assessee failed to produce evidence supporting its claim that the seized cash was meant for inter-branch transfer. The Tribunal found the explanation unsupported and inconsistent with available records.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that seizure of foreign-marked gold without separately recorded reasons under Section 110 of the Customs Act was legally defective. The Tribunal ruled that subsequent confiscation and penalties could not survive.
ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive verification of agricultural income and expenses. The Tribunal observed that detailed notices, documentary evidence, and independent inquiries were part of the original assessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed GSTR-3B returns along with applicable late fees. Bank attachments based on those orders were also set aside.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsustainable and directed immediate unblocking.
The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachment of bank accounts. The Court ruled that statutory safeguards are available through post-decisional remedies under Rule 159(5).
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
