The High Court held that a later Supreme Court judgment cannot justify invoking Section 254(2) to modify an ITAT order passed according to the prevailing law.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by admitting application u/s. 7 justifiable since application duly filed within 3 years of ‘Promise to Pay’ under section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that trade scheme payment to sales promoters whether pure reimbursement or not needs proper verification and since AO granted relief without proper verification and application of mind, PCIT rightly invoked revisionary proceedings u/s. 263.
The Bombay High Court held that when sales are accepted, entire bogus purchases cannot be added; only profit difference is taxable in the case of traders.
ITAT Kolkata held that investments in foreign life insurance policies were made from legitimate non-resident income and inherited sources. Addition of Rs. 1.08 crore under Black Money Act was deleted.
Gujarat High Court held that order passed in GST MOV-11 is appealable before appellate authority as per provision of section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [GST Act]. Accordingly, petitioner not entertained in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.
ITAT Mumbai held that USD 2.41 lakh deposits in Jersey bank accounts were inherited from the assessee’s parents and not undisclosed foreign income, setting aside the CIT(A)’s addition under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
Tribunal held that Section 69A covers unexplained money, not loans recorded in books. As all 14 lenders confirmed transactions with evidence, ₹1.86 crore addition was deleted.
The ITAT Bangalore confirmed that an initial order’s failure to consider a binding High Court ruling on bad debt deductibility constitutes a mistake apparent from record. This allowed the bank to claim a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for non-rural bad debts via rectification, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The key takeaway is that disregarding settled jurisdictional law is a rectifiable error, not a debatable issue.
