The Tribunal held that documented WhatsApp communications established counsel’s negligence and the assessee’s due diligence, justifying condonation of delay. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice.
The Court held that Section 74 SCNs lacking factual narration of fraud or suppression are deficient. The key takeaway is that numbers alone cannot justify penal proceedings.
The addition was set aside as no cash was found, traced, or shown to be received by the assessee. Mere suspicion or inference cannot substitute proof under section 69A.
This summary captures major notifications and court rulings issued during the week. The key takeaway is heightened regulatory clarity across taxation, markets, and foreign exchange.
The Tribunal upheld exemption where the assessee invested the entire capital gain within time but possession was delayed due to builder-related litigation. The ruling confirms that investment, not possession, is the key requirement under Section 54F.
The court held that reopening an assessment on the same facts amounts to an impermissible change of opinion. Arbitrary second reassessment notices were quashed with ₹1 lakh costs imposed to deter harassment.
The tribunal has instructed registries not to flag defects of form that do not affect merits. This eases compliance during early portal usage.
While alteration of the cheque amount is a material alteration under law, the court ruled that consent and responsibility for alteration are factual questions. The complaint was not quashed at the pre-trial stage.
The court held that once late fee is imposed for delayed annual return filing, a further general penalty is not permissible. Section 125 applies only where no specific penalty exists.
The Supreme Court upheld that mere excess stock found during inspection is insufficient for confiscation under Section 130. Tax must be assessed through Section 35(6) read with Sections 73 or 74, ensuring due process.
