ITAT ruled that reopening was bad in law as reasons cited property purchases, while additions related to cash credits—showing no live nexus. The case reaffirms that reassessment must be based on specific, relevant material.
Delhi ITAT held that non-filing of Form 10B is a curable defect and the assessee must be given an opportunity under section 139(9). Gross receipts cannot be taxed in entirety if exemptions fail.
Gujarat High Court held that Explanation to section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loss on sale of shares which were acquired on conversion of partly convertible debentures. Hence, loss on sale of such shares is not speculation loss and hence set off allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that passing of multiple adjudication orders under section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [GST Act] for single tax period is impermissible in law and hence quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The ITAT held that cash deposits recorded in books and from legitimate business sales during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A. Entire addition of ₹45.23 lakh was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that since for the year under consideration, there is no retention of income but in fact there is a deficit of 7%, hence the question of denying the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act wouldn’t arise. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of ₹2.57 crore TP adjustment, confirming that mere margin variations do not trigger 80IA(10) without evidence of profit manipulation. Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that recovery of interest amount which became due u/s. 50(1) of the CGST Act can be done only after issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01D. Accordingly, order quashed with direction to department to initiate proceedings by issuance of notice in Form GST DRC-01D.
Delhi High Court holds that an extension of the six-month period to issue a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act must be communicated before expiry of the initial period. Delay in issuance renders detention invalid.
The court held that goods supplied to an intermediary did not qualify for export duty exemption, affirming that factual findings by the Tribunal were correct.
