ITAT Delhi held that the absence of office premises and expatriate activity meant the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal ruled that Revenue cannot rely solely on past orders without verifying current-year facts.
ITAT Raipur held that matter regarding unexplained money addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act restored back as basic ingredients required u/s 68, i.e., identity / creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of transactions not satisfactorily explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that transfer of an undertaking under a court-approved scheme cannot be characterised as a slum sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) hence provisions of section 50B not attracted.
Bombay HC clarified Section 276C(2), holding that mere failure to pay self-assessment tax is not willful evasion, quashing prosecution after tax was paid belatedly.
CESTAT Bangalore held that additional duty of customs is very much leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act in respect of imported natural rubber equal to the duty of excise levied as cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947. Accordingly, refund rightly denied and appeal rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of principle of consistency. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
CESTAT held that confiscation of dry dates and penalties under the Customs Act were unjustified as the Department failed to prove the goods’ foreign origin. Opinions based on visual inspection were deemed without evidentiary value.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST demand order where SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab, directs fresh reply & hearing; validity of extension notifications still pending.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s V.C. Shukla principle, reaffirming that loose papers seized from third parties are without evidentiary value unless properly linked to the assessee through verified facts. ITAT, therefore, quashed both the 69A addition and the underlying 147 reopening as being based on mere surmises and conjectures.
