ITAT ruled that jurisdiction to reopen assessment arises only when a valid notice is issued to a living person or legal representative. Since the notice was issued to a deceased assessee, the reassessment order was declared illegal.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification, the Court found no ground to grant bail and there were no substantial change in circumstances had been shown.
ITAT Chennai held that where unaccounted purchases are found and the corresponding sales are not doubted, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be brought to tax, and not the entire purchase value. Accordingly, addition towards unaccounted purchases duly restricted.
ITAT Delhi held that gift of a property to wife specially when she is a co-sharer in the property cannot be considered to be a colourable device and camouflage transaction to taint claim of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F erroneously disallowed.
Supreme Court held that acquittal in a parricide case upheld due to lapses in investigation. It was held that overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-determination of assessable value of imported power bank without adequate evidence of undervaluation is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is set aside to that extent it had confirmed the adjudged demands on the basis of revised/enhanced valuation of goods.
Supreme Court held that in the absence of multiple State objects in the bye-laws of the Societies, the same cannot be treated as Multi-State Cooperative Societies, as statutory pre-conditions for invoking Section 103 of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 are absent.
The Tribunal held that capital gains from property transferred to a spouse without consideration must be taxed in the hands of the transferor under Section 64(1)(iv). Assessing it again in the transferee spouse’s hands was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond three years requires sanction from higher authorities under Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the PCIT, the reassessment notice was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS does not apply when cash is received as part of final sale consideration at the time of property registration. Since no advance was involved, penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
