ITAT ruled that although LTC exemption involving foreign travel stood disallowed by SC, such judgment could not retrospectively impose TDS default liability for periods covered by judicial interim protection.
Kolkata ITAT observed that suppressed turnover results in savings of rent, salary, and fixed expenses, warranting higher profit estimation, though not at the rate applied by the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT Chennai restored the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee’s condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was still pending. The Tribunal held that the decision on condonation directly affected eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of addition made on estimated production yield after finding no evidence of unaccounted sales. The ruling reiterates that suspicion and assumptions cannot replace material evidence in income tax assessments.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that alleged low production yield and power consumption variations could not justify addition without supporting evidence of unaccounted sales. The Court ruled that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or mathematical assumptions alone.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 80JJAA could not be claimed where the business was acquired through amalgamation. The Tribunal held that transfer of assets, liabilities, and business operations constituted business reorganisation under the Act.
ITAT Raipur held that alleged bogus purchases relating to a partnership firm could not be taxed protectively in the hands of one partner without direct linkage. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs.1.92 crore addition made on protective basis.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed restoration of GST registration even though the statutory appeal had been dismissed as barred by limitation. The relief was made conditional upon filing returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest.
The Calcutta High Court restrained the Income Tax Department from taking coercive steps in reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice issued in December 2024 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that compensation and liquidated damages recovered for contractual breaches do not amount to consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand on penalties and liquidated damages.
