The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The ITAT Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling against additions for ICDS adjustments, provision reversals (including liquidated damages and project costs), and Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The Tribunal held that subsequent reversal of provisions cannot be taxed again if the original provision was disallowed in earlier years, thereby preventing double taxation and upholding consistent accounting treatment.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by M/s. Priyam Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] for M/s. Steadfast Shipping Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] meeting requirements of Section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations stands approved.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that common show cause notice and/or common order for different tax periods is impermissible. Accordingly, common order for assessment periods 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 is liable to be set aside and matter remanded back to respondent.
Madras High Court directs petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount and quashed impugned order since petitioner failed to furnish reply to GST SCN. Accordingly, court also directs to furnish reply within stipulated time period.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
Madras High Court held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 not admissible without a valid ASEAN-India Free Trade Area [AIFTA] certificate. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed.
NCLT Jaipur held that conduct of the present Resolution Professional in CIRP proceeding of the Corporate Debtor [M/s U. N. Automobile Private Limited] seems to be non-transparent and in clear violation of the core objectives and principles of the Code.
