The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid when the AO fails to show how the assessee withheld material facts. The AO merely copied Investigation Wing inputs without independent reasoning. The entire reassessment was declared void for violating the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
Delhi High Court held that the mark ‘SoEasy’ for Hindi language learning is suggestive in nature and it is settled law that suggestive Trade Marks are liable to be protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition after finding no material linking the assessee to any accommodation-entry scheme. All documentary evidence—demat records, broker notes, and banking channels—supported genuine share transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion or probability cannot override verified evidence.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the person accused in matter of bogus firms and passing of fraudulent Input Tax Credit under GST since claims are yet to be proved and accused has been in prolonged custody.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Unijules Life Sciences Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by S.S. Fabricators & Manufacturers P. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] approved since it is duly approved by CoC and also meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the IBC.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be taxed u/s 68 when all sales were recorded, verified, and supported by stock and VAT records. Since books were audited, accepted, and showed no defect, the addition of ₹12.20 crore based on mere averages was unsustainable. The ruling confirms that documented cash sales cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that TCS provisions covered under section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to amount of compounding fees/ fine that was recovered from illegal miners and transporters of minerals.
