The High Court upheld deletion of ₹7.26 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that PAN, bank statements and audited financials established identity and creditworthiness. Suspicion without evidence was held insufficient.
The High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration and directed the petitioner to file all pending returns within 30 days. Arrears including tax, interest, and penalties remain payable.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as it relied solely on existing records. In absence of new tangible material, reopening amounted to impermissible review.
Allahabad High Court held that limitation cannot run from mere portal upload of an ex-parte order. The appellate authority must reconsider limitation where no proper communication was made.
Delhi High Court held reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated merely on an internal audit objection. Absence of new tangible material made reopening invalid.
The addition under Section 68 was deleted as capital introduced by partners is not a loan or unexplained credit of the firm. Enquiry into partners creditworthiness must be conducted separately in their cases.
The Tribunal observed that merely using the term misreporting without linking it to any specific statutory limb is insufficient. It quashed the penalty, reiterating that penal proceedings must be precise and legally justified.
The Tribunal upheld 200% penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income through ineligible deductions. Admitted incorrect claims were treated as conscious misrepresentation, not a bonafide error.
The Tribunal held that cash received at the time of executing a registered sale deed does not fall within the definition of “specified sum” under Section 269SS. Since the provision primarily targets advances in property transactions, penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the AO reopened the case under the mistaken belief that no scrutiny assessment had been made. Such factual error and absence of new incriminating material vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.
