ITAT ruled that invoking the Black Money Act for AY 2022–23 on income earned in FY 2015–16 was without jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment invalid.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once the Assessing Officer is aware of a merger, assessment in the name of the amalgamating company is invalid and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the notice failed to specify whether it targeted concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The ruling highlights the need for clarity in issuing tax penalties.
The Delhi High Court held that notices sent to a GST registrant’s registered email constitute valid service, rejecting claims that personal hearing notices were not received. Proper email communication fulfills natural justice requirements.
The Tribunal ruled that only the part of a property actually rented can be assessed for ALV, excluding self-occupied areas under Section 23(2).
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The Court ruled that blocking ITC beyond available credit under Rule 86A is invalid, directing authorities to remove negative blocking from the taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger.
Gujarat High Court quashed CBDT’s rejection and condoned delay in Sysco Industries’ income tax return filing, holding that insolvency and fire caused genuine hardship.
