The ITAT quashed the entire assessment order, ruling that the DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad, lacked jurisdiction to pass the order since no mandatory Section 127 transfer order was produced. The Tribunal held that without a valid transfer order from the original AO, the assessment is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that a ₹15.22 crore one-time payment to distributors, necessitated by a business model shift, was a valid revenue expenditure under Section 37, driven by commercial necessity. The ruling affirms that business prudence justifies compensation to maintain continuity without creating a capital asset.
ITAT Mumbai held that discount on issue of Employee Stock Option Plan [ESOP] is allowable as deduction in computing income under the head profits and gains of the business. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
The ITAT ruled that only the Gross Profit (GP) percentage on unaccounted purchases, not the entire purchase value, is taxable as undisclosed income. The Tribunal rejected the inflated purchase rate of Rs. 1,500 based solely on a partner’s statement, instead fixing a fair estimated rate of Rs. 770 per unit.
Bombay High Court held that invocation of provisions of Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and blocking of Input Tax Credit not justified since Input Tax Credit available in Electronic Credit Ledger was ‘NIL’. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Delhi ITAT grants relief to Park View Automotive, deleting a ₹5.59 Cr. addition on share sale. The Tribunal held that an AO cannot arbitrarily substitute a genuine bulk sale price based merely on an Investigation Wing report or suspicion, emphasizing that concrete documentary evidence must be rebutted.
The ITAT ruled that receipts from the sale of power generated during the pre-commencement trial run of a plant are capital receipts, not taxable revenue income. This is because, under the matching principle, corresponding pre-operative expenses were capitalized to the fixed asset cost, justifying the deletion of the Rs. 42.56 crore tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal in Samir N. Shah Vs ITO, holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or inaccurate particulars cannot be levied when the underlying income addition is made solely by estimating a gross profit rate on alleged bogus purchases, in the absence of concrete evidence like seized material or cash transactions.
NCLT Chandigarh held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Falcon Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] admitted as operational debt and default established.
The Tribunal voided the reassessment, citing multiple legal failures: it was time-barred under the new law, the AO failed to share mandatory material, and the condition under Section 149(1)(b) requiring a proven asset/expenditure was not met. The ruling provides strong takeaways on the validity of new reassessment provisions.
