The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Court held that the appellate authority set aside a refund without proper scrutiny or reasoning. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on whether the services constituted export or intermediary services.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
The Delhi High Court seeks an explanation for why certain GST demands were dropped despite the officer stating disagreement, highlighting procedural inconsistencies in tax assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B penalty order. The AO is directed to consider the assessees factual explanations without unnecessary adjournments.
ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment under Section 147, ruling that reopening based on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.
The Hyderabad tribunal clarified that section 144C provisions are procedural and cannot extend the statutory limitation under section 153. The AO passed the final assessment order after the permissible period, leading to quashing. The ruling strengthens the principle that statutory deadlines are paramount in tax proceedings.
The Court held that the Petitioner misrepresented the date of receiving the provisional attachment notice. Bank accounts cannot be freely operated, subject to a minimum balance of ₹1 crore.
The Telangana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by the six-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 149. Reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period is impermissible.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of unreliable books but ruled that the AO could not estimate net profit at 12% without justification, vacating ₹65.08 lakh addition.
