ITAT Delhi held that the LTCG derived from exclusive transfer of equity shares and units of equity oriented mutual funds only is held eligible for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, ground raised by the revenue stands allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imported tugboats are not machinery, equipment or tools. It is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8904 and hence benefit of notification no. 72/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 not admissible.
Madras High Court held that assessee can raise additional ground of validity of reassessment proceedings in terms of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, ITAT justified in accepting the ground that reassessment was change of opinion.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that income and valuation additions based solely on third-party digital data or statements cannot be made without corroboration from the assessee’s records, leading to deletion of disputed amounts.
CESTAT ruled that statements and WhatsApp messages cannot be treated as evidence for imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 without following procedural safeguards, including examination in chief and cross-examination.
Rajesh Todwal S/o Prem Chand Todwal Vs Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Summary: The Rajasthan High Court heard a petition challenging a notice dated 28 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) […]
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
The High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of through the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The Court set aside the notices for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
