The Tribunal remanded the reassessment after the assessee sought another opportunity to explain the source of investment. The addition was set aside subject to payment of costs and fresh adjudication on merits.
The Supreme Court held that appeals involving tax below the prescribed monetary threshold should not be pursued. The question of limitation in reassessment was left open for future cases.
The High Court held that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause consultation rendered the tax proceedings unsustainable, and remanded the matter to CESTAT for fresh decision on merits.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that invoices from 2016–2017 were barred by limitation and unilateral ledger transfers could not revive the claim under the IBC.
The Supreme Court found no overlapping between the criminal investigation and the States administrative probe. The writ petition seeking restraint was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed Revenue appeals after holding that the assessee’s activities were charitable in nature, making it eligible for exemption under Section 11. The ruling followed the Supreme Court’s precedent and settled multiple connected tax issues.
The High Court entertained a writ challenging Section 168A notifications, holding that absence of force majeure and alleged breach of natural justice raised a strong arguable case. Recovery was stayed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order invalidating a return for alleged non-compliance with Section 44AB audit requirements and directed a fresh hearing on whether turnover actually exceeded ₹10 crores.
The High Court held that registration under Section 12A cannot be granted based solely on oral submissions without documentary proof. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to produce additional evidence.
