The Delhi High Court set aside DGFT’s communication placing an importer in the “Denied Entity List” after finding violation of natural justice and Section 8 of the FTDR Act. The Court held that such action cannot be taken without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal ruled that workload and assessment proceedings alone cannot justify extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. The Revenues appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to lack of convincing explanation.
Bangalore ITAT held that unsigned loose sheets, scribblings, and rough jottings without corroborative evidence cannot form the sole basis for tax additions. The Tribunal deleted the protective additions linked to alleged capitation fee receipts.
Bangalore ITAT held that interest paid on a housing loan can be treated as part of the cost of acquisition where no deduction was claimed under house property income. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow indexed benefit on such interest expenditure.
Delhi High Court held that even if the father may not qualify as a Class-I heir under succession law, he can still fall within the broader definition of legal representative for tax proceedings.
The Rajasthan High Court held that a GST penalty order without a DIN was still valid because it contained a verifiable Reference Number (RFN) retrievable through the GST portal. The Court ruled that portal upload, email, and postal service satisfied statutory communication requirements.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that the opening capital figure in the earlier ITR was wrongly reported due to omissions of FDRs and bank balances. Since the assets already existed in the preceding year, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend arising from reduction of share capital qualified for exemption under Section 10(34). The decision followed earlier Bombay High Court rulings involving identical transactions and shareholders.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
