The Tribunal upheld disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGC after finding the political donation lacked genuineness. The ruling highlights that payments through banking channels alone cannot establish a valid deduction when surrounding facts indicate accommodation entries.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that alleged low production yield and power consumption variations could not justify addition without supporting evidence of unaccounted sales. The Court ruled that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or mathematical assumptions alone.
ITAT Raipur held that alleged bogus purchases relating to a partnership firm could not be taxed protectively in the hands of one partner without direct linkage. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs.1.92 crore addition made on protective basis.
Tribunal ruled that reliance on statement of an alleged accommodation entry provider without furnishing statement or allowing cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
Kolkata ITAT upheld deletion of addition relating to alleged bogus penny stock loss after finding that the assessee had furnished contract notes, demat records, broker statements, and bank documents supporting the transactions.
Mumbai ITAT observed that assessable value under customs law may differ from invoice value and such variation by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69C without further evidence.
The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to alleged penny stock manipulation. Documentary records, banking transactions, and Demat evidence supported the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Calcutta High Court held that the assessing officer misconstrued CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2024 while rejecting carry forward of loss due to a seven-day filing delay. The Court directed the authorities to condone the delay and process the return according to law.
The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounted only to suspicion and not a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted statements and third-party Tally data without independent corroborative evidence.
