ITAT Delhi held that levy of penalty under Section 271D requires pending or completed assessment proceedings containing findings on Section 269SS violation. Since no regular assessment was framed, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
Delhi ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp messages and digital chats cannot by themselves establish undisclosed cash transactions. The Tribunal deleted additions made solely on presumptions without independent evidence.
The Supreme Court held that courts must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and reject suits that indirectly seek enforcement of prohibited benami transactions. The ruling strengthens Order VII Rule 11 CPC as a safeguard against sham and legally barred litigation.
Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when supported by prior bank withdrawals. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must prove cash was spent elsewhere before invoking Section 69A.
The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically become unenforceable merely because the purchaser failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be invoked merely to recover disputed dues arising from contractual transactions.
The Supreme Court held that a collaborator essential to contract execution and bound through a Deed of Joint Undertaking can invoke the arbitration clause despite not being a direct signatory.
The Pune ITAT held that entire cash deposits in bank accounts cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income when the assessee appears to be only a conduit in an accommodation entry network. The Tribunal restricted the taxable addition to 2% of deposits after finding no evidence of actual enrichment.
Assessee – university challenged an order issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act confirming GST demand of Rs.16.90 crores along with equivalent penalty and interest on affiliation fees collected by the University for the period 2017-18 to 2022-23.
DCIT-CC-8(4) Vs Offbeat Developers Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined Revenue appeals involving disallowances made on various expenses claimed by a mall developer engaged in leasing property and providing related services, where income was offered under both “Income from House Property” and “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession.” The […]
