Bombay High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs N.N. Trading Corporation, holding no substantial question of law arises in dispute over gross profit estimation on bogus purchases.
ITAT Special Bench rules that may in Black Money Act Sec 43 means penalty is discretionary, not mandatory, requiring AO to consider assessee’s explanation before levy.
Bombay High Court quashes ITAT order that rectified its decision based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling (Checkmate Services), affirming Sec 254(2) limits to mistakes apparent from record.
Ujjawal Agarwal, accused of ineligible Input Tax Credit use under the Assam GST Act, secures regular bail from Gauhati High Court, which cited the duration of custody and procedural deficiencies in the arrest authorization.
ITAT Agra deleted additions on gifts received from real sisters, holding that when identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are proven, Section 68 cannot apply to family gifts made out of natural affection.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted under the Income Disclosure Scheme, the Revenue cannot revisit or reassess the same income.
Delhi ITAT ruled that a single, non-speaking approval u/s 153D issued for 14 assessment years and two assessees was invalid, holding that approval must be year-specific and assessee-specific. All assessments were quashed as void ab initio.
In a search assessment dispute, the ITAT Delhi struck down an addition of cash payments, concluding that the diary entries used as evidence were rough, unsigned jottings with no established link to the taxpayer’s finances beyond speculation. The entire addition was deleted as the diary lacked legal evidentiary value.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a disallowance of Rs.1.22 crore, ruling that charges paid to the Stock Exchange for margin shortfall are regulatory fees, not penalties for offenses prohibited by law. Following Delhi High Court precedent, the Tribunal held these payments are allowable commercial business expenditure under Section 37(1)
