The Tribunal held that it was unclear whether the ₹20 lakh receipt was a loan or a property advance and remanded the matter for fresh examination. The ruling underscores that section 68 additions depend on establishing the true character of the receipt through contemporaneous evidence.
The ITAT ruled that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on suspicion when transactions are supported by proper banking, demat, and broker records.
The assessee neither filed returns nor responded to statutory notices, yet additions were deleted on appeal. ITAT held that absence of verification of source and compliance makes such deletion unsustainable.
The assessment proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual premise regarding the date of deposit. ITAT ruled that such an error warrants remand for fresh examination of cash source and sales genuineness.
The reassessment was triggered without examining invoices, bank entries, TDS data, or business records. The Tribunal held that mechanical reopening based on external information is bad in law.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment could stand when based on information relating to another individual. It held that reopening was invalid due to absence of any tangible material against the assessee.
Madras High Court held that compounding charges payable by petitioner as per revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 is unsustainable since on the date of writ order i.e. 13.04.2022, the revised guidelines was not in force. Accordingly, writ petition deserved to be allowed.
The writ was filed long after appellate orders were passed and without approaching ITAT. The Court held that delay and failure to exhaust statutory remedies disentitled the assessee from writ relief.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that DGFT notification no. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of Garnet irrespective of its origin. Customs tariff doesn’t distinguish between ‘Garnet found on beach’ and ‘Garnet found in inland places’. Accordingly, confiscation of export goods uphold and penalty imposed.
The dispute concerned denial of TDS credit solely due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive and factual deduction of tax overrides system mismatch.
