The Tribunal held that cash deposits reflecting routine business transactions cannot be treated wholly as unexplained income. Only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable.
The tax authorities disallowed Bhandara expenses assuming a religious character without concrete evidence. The Tribunal held that mere suspicion cannot override the accepted fact of food being provided to the needy.
NCLAT Delhi held that each and every commercial transaction which has resulted in loss may not be labelled as fraudulent or to have been done to deceive creditors. Accordingly, since ingredients of section 66(2) of IBC is lacking, the transaction cannot be labelled as fraudulent.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that maintaining a temple or holding festivals does not disqualify a trust if substantial funds are spent on public welfare. Authorities must examine actual expenditure patterns, not assumptions.
ITAT Cuttack held that reassessment proceedings fail when no addition is made on the very reasons recorded for reopening. If the original ground disappears, the entire reassessment becomes invalid.
The Tribunal held that where the input tax credit ratio reduced in the post-GST period, no additional benefit accrued to the developer. Consequently, no profiteering under Section 171 was established.
The Tribunal held that increasing base prices after a GST rate reduction defeated the statutory mandate of Section 171. Profiteering was confirmed as the benefit of tax reduction was not passed on to consumers.
The competition regulator found a prima facie case that large-scale cancellations followed by higher fares may amount to abuse of dominance. A detailed investigation has been ordered to examine unfair pricing and restriction of services.
The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise an assessment when the very issue was already under challenge before the appellate authority. Parallel revision proceedings were held to be impermissible.
