The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
Once the order of ITAT had attained finality on factual aspects and assessee had discharged the entire liability, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, under Section 225(2) to lift the attachment on property.
Entry 9 of Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Entry 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), both dated 28 June 2017, which had imposed Integrated GST (IGST) on ocean freight under reverse charge was quashed as levy on ocean freight amounted to double taxation
Royalty paid for technical know-how was not a ‘condition of sale’ merely because it was included in the value of imported goods as it pertained to post-importation activities relating to the manufacture of finished goods in India and was not a condition of sale of imported components.
Once an appellate authority like the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT deleted a tax addition and assessee’s liability stood discharged, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound to give effect to such order and lift the attachment.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2014–15 were time-barred and quashed notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A.
ITAT Delhi emphasized that Revenue must present convincing evidence of fraud or economic substance absence to deny DTAA benefits, following Delhi HC guidance in Tiger Global International.
Tribunal confirmed that incomplete construction does not cancel a transfer under section 2(47)(vi). The matter was remanded for proper computation of capital gains considering partial project completion.
