Court held that undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B may be computed using both seized search material and other information connected to it. The ruling confirms the Assessing Officer’s power to rely on post-search enquiries if they relate to search evidence.
The High Court ruled that undisclosed income can be assessed using both search material and other information relatable to it, confirming the ITAT’s interpretation of Section 158-BB.
The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner’s suo motu revision under Section 263 was unjustified, confirming that donations to other charitable trusts qualify as application of income under Section 11.
The High Court examined a claim that cash recovered during raids originated from a 2008 family settlement. The authorities challenged this, citing suspicion of illegal gratification and procedural gaps.
The Tribunal held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid when the AO fails to show how the assessee withheld material facts. The AO merely copied Investigation Wing inputs without independent reasoning. The entire reassessment was declared void for violating the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The Tribunal held that reopening based on Section 50C was unsustainable because the provision applies only to sellers, not purchasers of property. With the very foundation of reassessment failing, the addition based on circle-rate difference was deleted. The ruling underscores that incorrect legal assumptions cannot justify reopening under Section 147.
Delhi High Court held that the mark ‘SoEasy’ for Hindi language learning is suggestive in nature and it is settled law that suggestive Trade Marks are liable to be protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition after finding no material linking the assessee to any accommodation-entry scheme. All documentary evidence—demat records, broker notes, and banking channels—supported genuine share transactions. The ruling reiterates that suspicion or probability cannot override verified evidence.
