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.
ITAT Delhi directed the AO to compute Annual Letting Value (ALV) only for the portion of the house property actually rented out (third/fourth floors). Taxing the entire property based on assumptions, ignoring the owner’s self-occupation, was held to be unjustified.
Allahabad High Court quashed GST orders under Section 74, holding that ITC cannot be denied when purchases were made from a registered dealer whose GST registration was later cancelled.
ITAT Kolkata deleted a Rs.7.11 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that an assessee’s comprehensive documentary evidence (PAN, bank statements) cannot be dismissed merely because subscribers failed to appear for summons. The onus shifted back to the Revenue.
SC held that private stage carriage operators cannot be granted permits on inter-State routes overlapping notified intra-State routes, reaffirming that State transport schemes under Chapter VI of Motor Vehicles Act override inter-State agreements.
ITAT found authorities erred by upholding CPC’s denial of exemption solely because assessee filed ITR-7 instead of ITR-5. Ruling emphasizes that denying a just claim over procedural non-compliance causes undue hardship to taxpayer.
The Madras High Court quashed an order levying 1% GST on a corporate guarantee furnished to a related party, ruling that the assessing officer failed to consider two relevant CBIC Circulars. The court remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for a fresh determination after considering the petitioner’s defense, which relied on the recipient being eligible for full Input Tax Credit.
ITAT Chennai held that when sales are accepted and supported by records, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because suppliers were untraceable. Addition restricted to 12.5% as profit element.
