The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The Court ruled that GST proceedings initiated under Section 74 for FY 2024–25 were without jurisdiction and directed treatment of the order as a Section 74A notice.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed using the final stamp value determined after litigation, not an earlier inflated valuation, and directed deletion of the resulting addition.
Delhi High Court held that refusal to renew passport by the passport authority to the person arrested under GST law is not justifiable since trial court has already granted No Objection Certificate [NOC] to the applicant on bail. Accordingly, concerned passport authorities are directed to renew the passports in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot apply FMV for capital gains and book value for business income on the same converted asset. Section 45(2) mandates consistent valuation to prevent artificial inflation of taxable income.
The Tribunal held that adverse regulatory findings alone cannot justify tax additions when client code modification trades are already recorded in the books and profits are disclosed.
The issue concerned taxation of alleged on-money from sale of land. The Tribunal held that once the land was agricultural and outside section 2(14), capital gains and on-money additions could not survive.
ITAT held that CPC cannot deny charitable exemption under section 11 through section 143(1) adjustment without issuing prior intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after due opportunity.
The Court held that an assessee cannot be denied TDS credit or saddled with tax demand when tax has been deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer.
The High Court ruled that defaults arising from a Chartered Accountant’s actions are attributable to the taxpayer. Alleged misappropriation by the consultant does not invalidate GST demand orders.
