ITAT found that the taxpayer’s foreign investment was funded through disclosed banking channels and tax-paid funds. Since there was no deliberate concealment, the penalty was deleted.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the primary burden under Section 68 by producing complete documentary evidence regarding the lender and the loan transaction. The addition was deleted because the Revenue failed to disprove the evidence.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment based on information received from the Kolkata Investigation Wing regarding alleged shell companies. The Court held that such information provided tangible material for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that bank accounts cannot remain frozen merely because the account holder is related to a suspect or under investigation. The ED must first establish a prima facie connection between the property and proceeds of crime.
Allahabad High Court set aside a GST refund rejection after the taxpayer was unable to upload an additional reply on the GST portal. The Court held that the portal must support supplementary replies to ensure proper adjudication and fair hearing.
The Tribunal observed that taxpayers opting for presumptive taxation are not required to maintain books of account and therefore Section 68 could not be applied merely on the basis of bank statements.
Delhi ITAT held that issues relating to source of donations and cash deposits should generally be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section 12AB.
The ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that preferential location charges for flats form part of construction services and cannot be taxed separately. The Court quashed earlier advance ruling orders after relying on the GST Council recommendation and government clarification.
The Tribunal ruled that long-term capital gains taxable under Section 112 form part of total income and qualify for Section 87A rebate if the prescribed income limit is satisfied. It also held that Finance Act 2025 amendments restricting the rebate are prospective.
