The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenues appeal after holding that the CIT(A) and ITAT had thoroughly examined the lenders’ creditworthiness. It found no substantial question of law warranting interference.
The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, suppression, or wilful intent. The Court set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalty for lack of statutory compliance.
The Delhi High Court held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13). It upheld the ITAT’s decision and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to question the petitioner in Kolkata instead of Delhi. The Court held that the alleged offence and the cause of action originated in West Bengal, making questioning in Kolkata appropriate.
The High Court held that no addition under Section 68 could be sustained as the Revenue failed to produce material connecting the assessee with the cash deposited in another company’s bank account.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s order after finding that the Revenue failed to establish any perversity in the concurrent factual findings regarding share capital, unsecured loans and earnest money.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s finding that the assessee had established the identity of creditors and the genuineness of loan transactions through banking channels. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Where an ECIR based on an earlier predicate offence had already resulted in search and seizure proceedings and no fresh incriminating material subsequently emerged, the Enforcement Directorate could not justify arrest under Section 19 PMLA by merely incorporating another FIR through an addendum and relying on substantially the same allegations.
Smt. Pavithra Sugichandran Vs Office of the DCIT (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court considered six writ petitions challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner’s husband, a director of Gateway Office Parks Limited (GOPL), faced allegations of siphoning company funds, leading to a search and seizure operation. Materials allegedly […]
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision restricting the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of sustaining a 100% disallowance. It held that the appellate authorities rightly taxed only the income component embedded in the disputed transactions.
