ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment (AY 2016-17) and deletes Rs.2.25 Cr LTCG addition after finding that PCIT, not PCCIT, gave the required Section 151 approval.
The Calcutta High Court refused to intervene in a GST demand order under Section 73, rejecting a writ petition filed eight months late. The Court held that statutory appellate remedies cannot be bypassed when the case does not involve jurisdictional issues or violation of natural justice.
ITAT confirmed GP and unsecured loan additions but deleted expense disallowances, ruling that rebates and receipt-backed rent are valid business expenses without a proven personal element.
ITAT Delhi upholds the Rs. 1 crore addition (u/s 68) confirmed by CIT(A), dismissing the assessees appeal due to its repeated failure to produce evidence for the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the purported loan. No evidence, no relief.
ITAT Delhi upholds the quashing of s. 153C assessment for AY 2012-13, ruling it’s beyond the 10-year block of limitation as per s. 153A/C and Delhi High Court precedent in Ojjus Medicare.
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
The ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of Svetlana Gorodinskaia, ruling that unexplained cash of ₹4,07,000/- found during a survey operation must be taxed as “unexplained money” under Section 69A and subjected to the higher tax rates of Section 115BBE
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals of KPC Medical College And Hospital, setting aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA, ruling that the show cause notices were invalid for failing to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
NCLT Hyderabad held that equity investment is not a loan and doesn’t fall within the meaning of ‘operational debt’ under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of IBC for initiation of IBC dismissed.
