ITAT Mumbai held that TDS need not be deducted on year-end expense provisions where payees are unidentifiable and liability crystallizes later. Case remanded for factual verification.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 69 and 132 of the HGST Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhika Agarwal upholding the validity of GST arrest provisions.
Kerala High Court denied the Section 10(37) capital gains exemption for land with trees, ruling that mere existence of rubber or fruit trees is insufficient. Assessee must prove actual agricultural activity and income in the preceding two years. The Court directed the AO to re-examine the alternate Section 54F exemption claim on merits.
Tribunal remanded matter for a de novo assessment after noting that Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order without examining ownership and consideration details in a capital gains case.
ITAT held that funds from earlier years and IDS disclosures cannot justify cash deposits made in a later year without proper linkage or documentation. Addition under Section 68 was upheld.
Bombay High Court holds that a GST Show Cause Notice (SCN) served on an old, non-authorized email address constitutes invalid service. The SCN for FY 2020-21 was deemed prima facie time-barred, leading to a stay on the resulting order.
ITAT Mumbai held that USD 2.41 lakh deposits in Jersey bank accounts were inherited from the assessee’s parents and not undisclosed foreign income, setting aside the CIT(A)’s addition under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act.
The ITAT Delhi upheld the deletion of an addition for alleged penny stock LTCG under Section 68, ruling that an assessment for an unabated year under Section 153A requires incriminating material found during the search. Since the addition was based on general analysis, not seized documents, the Revenues appeal was dismissed. The key takeaway affirms the Supreme Courts mandate that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without specific incriminating evidence.
The CIT(A) deleted a ₹ 75.5 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding the AO violated natural justice by denying cross-examination of the third-party who provided the statement. The ITAT accepted the reassessment was correctly initiated under Section 147, but the final ruling on the Revenue’s appeal is incomplete.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that opting for Section 115BAA overrides the 20% LTCG rate under Section 112.
