CESTAT Delhi ruled that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units do not constitute trading under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. As units are cancelled upon redemption and not transferred, no CENVAT credit reversal or extended limitation applies.
ITAT deleted ₹14.74 lakh addition as identical source was accepted in spouse’s case. Alleged on-money payment lacked corroborative evidence.
Tribunal ruled that once consideration was received and possession handed over in an earlier year, subsequent registration cannot shift taxability. Revenue’s reliance on Insight Portal data was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held allotment letter is an agreement to sell; stamp duty value on booking/allotment date applies u/s 56(2)(x) where payments were via banking channels. ₹45.03L addition set aside for verification.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
The ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid as approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) after receiving return in reassessment proceedings is a jurisdictional defect. The reassessment order was quashed.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment beyond 3 years as approval under Sec 151(ii) was granted by PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT, rendering notice u/s 148 and entire proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption after the High Court condoned delay in filing Form 10B. It held that denial of relief due to technical lapse was unjustified.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains treated as bogus could not be added in a completed assessment year absent search-based incriminating evidence. Investigation reports alone were held insufficient.
