Tribunal quashed reopening under Section 147 where AO’s presumption of non-filing contradicted the documented return, citing Deepak Wadhwa precedent.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application in the case of fake firms for passing on ineligible ITC by issuing fake GST bills not granted since twin conditions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] not fulfilled.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] rightly rejected on account of pre-existing dispute between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
Delhi HC ruled that both jurisdictional and faceless officers can issue Section 148 notices. It reaffirmed that faceless regime does not eliminate JAO authority until Supreme Court decides otherwise.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
