The Court held that the first refund application filed in 2018 stopped the limitation period and that subsequent filings after deficiency memos were a continuation, making the refund claim timely.
The Court accepted a previously rejected Form F worth ₹6.29 crore after verifying its authenticity. It held that genuine branch transfer claims cannot be denied solely for delayed production.
Tribunal held that no capital gains arise on amalgamation or demerger carried out as part of a genuine family settlement. It ruled that such restructuring is not a “transfer” under tax law, affirming the assessee’s indexed cost and tax-neutral treatment.
ITAT Chennai ruled that notional contract values in F&O trading cannot be treated as real income. The case was sent back to the AO for reassessment based on actual profits and losses.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that development right of a defaulting developer do not constitute ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of corporate debtor. Further, since the said development agreement stood terminated prior to initiation of CIRP no subsisting or enforceable right survived in favour of corporate debtor.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR by evaluating defence evidence and deciding intention prematurely. It ruled that the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence, requiring trial.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment under Section 148 is invalid if no fresh material emerges. Key takeaway: AO cannot reopen concluded assessments on pre-existing facts.
Tribunal held that additions for excess gold stock under Section 69A could not stand when purchases, job-work gold, and export stock were fully supported by invoices, confirmations, and bank records. The ruling emphasizes that reconciled and verified records override survey-time assumptions.
