The Tribunal held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by documents, the entire purchase value cannot be added as bogus. Only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the full expenditure.
The Tribunal held that merely treating a claimed business loss as a speculative loss amounts to a change in head of loss, not under-reporting of income. Penalty under Section 270A was deleted as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The case addressed the legality of reopening an assessment when the notice was not issued through NFAC. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the Tribunal ruled that such deviation vitiates the entire reassessment process.
Delhi High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is to be restricted to the exempted income. Amendment to section 14A in terms of Finance Act, 2022 is prospective in nature. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Cash deposits arising from routine business collections cannot be wholly treated as unexplained income. The ruling confirms that estimations must reflect the nature of the taxpayer’s business.
ITAT Pune held that non-examination of issue of depreciation claimed on goodwill justifies invocation of revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order sustained and appeal of assessee dismissed.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Corporate Debtor [Damara Gold Private Limited] has committed a default in repaying the financial debt to the Financial Creditor [M/s. Punjab National Bank]. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC for initiation of CIRP admitted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is purely estimated. The ruling reinforces that estimation alone does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT held that once tax is deducted from an employee’s income, credit cannot be denied merely because the employer failed to deposit it. Section 205 bars recovery of such tax from the employee.
The Tribunal upheld depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The ruling confirms that excess consideration recognized as goodwill qualifies for depreciation under section 32.
