ITAT held that mass same-day approval without reviewing records violated Section 153D. The ruling confirms that mechanical approvals invalidate 153A assessments.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that gross sale proceeds of capital assets cannot be treated as taxable income without allowing cost of acquisition. Tribunal orders reassessment to compute correct capital gains, despite assessee’s non-compliance.
The court held that non-disclosure of CESS in GSTR-3B, corrected in GSTR-9, was revenue neutral. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the case.
The tax authority’s assessment and penalty were set aside as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to submit documents or Rule 46A application. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice before rejecting section 54F claims.
ITAT Kolkata deletes ₹7.84 crore addition on F&O and currency-derivative losses as AO relied solely on a now-vacated SEBI interim order. Tribunal emphasized that the assessee submitted full documentary evidence, which remained unrebutted, confirming losses as genuine.
The Revenue relied on third-party statements and WhatsApp data to allege an unrecorded ₹25 crore cash loan, but brought no supporting inquiry or cross-examination. The Tribunal held that the AO’s conclusion was speculative, especially when bank-backed evidence, TDS records, and a registered loan agreement supported only a ₹10 crore loan. Key takeaway: additions under Section 69A require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
The Court held that brief delays in producing documents during transit do not constitute grounds for a Section 48(5) VAT penalty, setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee.
The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of unreliable books but ruled that the AO could not estimate net profit at 12% without justification, vacating ₹65.08 lakh addition.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
