ITAT Raipur held that alleged bogus purchases relating to a partnership firm could not be taxed protectively in the hands of one partner without direct linkage. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs.1.92 crore addition made on protective basis.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed restoration of GST registration even though the statutory appeal had been dismissed as barred by limitation. The relief was made conditional upon filing returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest.
The Calcutta High Court restrained the Income Tax Department from taking coercive steps in reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice issued in December 2024 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that compensation and liquidated damages recovered for contractual breaches do not amount to consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand on penalties and liquidated damages.
The Mumbai ITAT restored additions relating to unreconciled DGFT import and export figures after finding that complete data relied upon by the Department had not been furnished to the assessee. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication after providing detailed DGFT records and an opportunity for reconciliation.
Tribunal ruled that reliance on statement of an alleged accommodation entry provider without furnishing statement or allowing cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Orissa High Court modified a motor accident compensation award after finding that the Tribunal failed to deduct income tax while calculating loss of dependency. The Court recalculated compensation using the deceased’s taxable income under the new tax regime.
ITAT Agra held that an inadvertent disclosure of exempt income under “income from other sources” could not deny exemption to an educational institution. The Tribunal directed rectification of the tax demand after verifying eligibility under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue’s appeal was not maintainable after excluding Education Cess from tax effect computation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect fell below the CBDT threshold limit of Rs.60 lakh.
Tribunal ruled that unsold flats shown as stock-in-trade by a real estate developer cannot attract notional rent taxation. The decision relied on earlier judicial precedents recognizing such assets as part of business operations.
