The Hyderabad Bench emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely because an addition survives appellate scrutiny. The Revenue must establish deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
ITAT deleted the addition after finding that neither possession nor ownership had passed during the relevant assessment year. The decision emphasizes that actual transfer, not mere intention to sell, determines taxability.
ITAT held that proving the mode of payment is not enough to secure deduction for political contributions where evidence points to a bogus donation scheme. Taxpayers must establish the authenticity of the entire transaction.
Sanand Properties P. Ltd. Vs Jt. Commr. of I.T. Range 6 And Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Reopening of Assessment Valid Because Survey Unearthed Fresh Tangible Material: SC; 35% Share Taxable as Revenue Since Expenses Never Reduced Entitlement: SC; Receipts Linked to Gross Sales Held Taxable as Business Income, Not Profit Share; Assessment Reopening Sustained […]
The Tribunal held that rebate under section 87A could not be denied merely because LTCG exceeded Rs.1 lakh. It ruled that the relevant consideration was the tax computed on such gains, leading to deletion of the adjustment made under section 143(1).
The Madras High Court directed fresh consideration of an OBC-NCL certificate application in light of the Supreme Court’s clarification on income computation. It emphasized that the relevant guidelines must be considered while deciding eligibility.
The Delhi ITAT sustained the addition arising from the sale of listed shares after finding discrepancies in purchase records, including contradictory sale notes and payment receipts. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the underlying share transactions.
The Delhi ITAT concluded that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the three essential ingredients required under Section 68. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the funds originated from the assessee itself. The decision resulted in the deletion of the entire addition relating to share capital and premium.
The Karnataka High Court quashed an assessment order after finding that allegations concerning 119 apartment sales were introduced without prior notice during Section 148A proceedings. The Court granted the taxpayer an opportunity to submit a detailed response before fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that income could not be assessed in the hands of a firm that had ceased to exist years earlier. Since the deposits belonged to the successor proprietorship concern, the addition was deleted.
