ITAT Mumbai ruled that a flat booked in 2009 is valued based on that year, even if the flat number changed later, preventing a ₹1.26 crore addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The assessee furnished PANs, bank statements, and confirmations proving the genuineness of share capital and loan transactions, leading to dismissal of the Revenue appeal. Both CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed that repayment and identity verification are sufficient. This reinforces legal certainty in documented transactions under Section 68.
ITAT held that ₹1.5 Cr advance for a real estate project, which became irrecoverable, qualifies as a trading loss under section 28. The decision reverses AO and CIT(A) disallowances, allowing the loss as a business expense.
NCLAT Delhi held that Prospective Resolution Applicant or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant doesn’t have vested right to challenge a resolution process or an approved resolution plan. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
NCLAT Chennai grants extended period of 60 days to make full and final payment for execution of Scheme of Arrangement. Accordingly, order is quashed and extension of 60 days is allowed.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
