ITAT Surat held that the entire investment amount could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished supporting records relating to agricultural income and other sources. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed amount and granted substantial relief.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the property could not have been transferred without compensating the occupants. The related payments were therefore held deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains purposes.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
Section 7 insolvency application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) was admitted against Martina Bio Genics Private Limited and held that pending winding-up proceedings could not override the objective of corporate revival under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Appellants activity of providing trailers along with drivers, crew, fuel, insurance and retaining effective control and possession thereof was appropriately classifiable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service” and not under Goods Transport Agency Service.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST assessment after the taxpayer claimed that notices were served only through the GST portal. The key takeaway is that taxpayers may receive a fresh opportunity to contest proceedings where effective participation was lacking.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment against a second-hand mobile phone dealer who claimed taxation should apply only to the margin under Rule 32(5).
ITAT Chennai held that reopening an assessment after four years based on issues already examined during scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. The key takeaway is that reassessment cannot be used as a tool to review a concluded assessment without fresh tangible material.
The Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the taxpayer had furnished complete documentary evidence of purchase and sale of shares. The ruling emphasizes that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence.
