Telangana High Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 were time-barred because they were dispatched from the ITBA portal after 31.03.2021. The Court ruled that mere digital signing or generation of notices within limitation was insufficient without actual dispatch.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at a premature stage when reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are yet to be concluded. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies.
The ITAT Agra held that the tax authorities failed to consider earlier cash withdrawals while treating demonetization deposits as unexplained. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.1 lakh and granted substantial relief to the assessee.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had disclosed sales and provided debtor details. The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
The Bangalore ITAT deleted disallowance on transport expenses incurred across India through drivers and local agents. The ruling emphasized that practical realities of the transport industry cannot be ignored while assessing business expenditure.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of seized arecanut consignments and a vehicle after finding that Section 130 proceedings were already in progress. The Court held that the petitioner must raise objections before the statutory authority instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Bangalore ITAT upheld exclusion of manufacturing entities from transfer pricing comparables after finding that the assessee’s activities were mainly trading in nature. The Tribunal held that manufacturers and traders differ significantly in functions, assets, and risks.
The Delhi ITAT restored the assessment proceedings after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider documents and submissions uploaded during e-proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appellate finding of non-compliance was contrary to the record.
The Delhi High Court set aside DGFT’s communication placing an importer in the “Denied Entity List” after finding violation of natural justice and Section 8 of the FTDR Act. The Court held that such action cannot be taken without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
