Tribunal ruled that high-rate tax under Section 115BBE cannot be applied to assessment year 2017-18 cash deposit, as section applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Decision directs AO to compute consequential tax liability under normal provisions.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹31.35 lakh addition for alleged inflated purchases, ruling that an assessment cannot rest solely on third-party search data. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to conduct any independent enquiry or provide corroborating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions.
ITAT Delhi remanded the addition of 12.5% profit on alleged bogus sales because the CIT(A) sustained the amount (₹20.16 lakh) without providing adequate reasoning or opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh, speaking order after considering all submissions.
ITAT Delhi condoned a significant delay in filing appeals, ruling the cause was bona fide as the accountant’s linked email ID led to the non-receipt of assessment and penalty notices. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment and penalty, remanding the case for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the execution of a ₹1,087 crore arbitral award, ruling that a company’s allegation of fraud committed by its own officers (fraud on self) is not grounds to nullify a final award. The ruling restricts the scope of objections under Section 47 CPC to fraud vitiating the arbitral process itself, not internal corporate misconduct.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT confirmed the unexplained cash deposit addition of ₹32.22 lakh after dismissing the Assessee’s casual adjournment request and hearing the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities’ finding that the Assessee’s M-Pesa conduit claim was unsubstantiated by evidence.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, emphasizing that the Assessee deserved a proper opportunity to argue their case on merits despite missing the final notices.1 The matter was sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision, with the Assessee directed to cooperate fully.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
