ITAT Indore held that land located beyond 8 km from nearest municipality does not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii), exempting gains from capital gains tax.
Rejecting assessee’s plea of invalid reopening, Tribunal ruled that minor clerical mistakes in reasons recorded under Section 147 do not vitiate proceedings if substantive material exists. Information disseminated through Insight Portal was sufficient to establish AO’s belief.
ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, holding that once substantive additions related to payments made by assessee were upheld by Tribunal and CIT(A) in cases of receiving parties, corresponding protective additions against assessee must be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹47 lakh bogus LTCG addition, holding that ‘human probability’ cannot override transactions conducted through stock exchange, demat, and banking channels. Mere high profit does not make a transaction bogus.
Allahabad HC grants bail to Manoj Kumar Garg in a {₹}40 crore fake ITC case, citing completed investigation, documentary evidence, slow trial pace, and limited maximum sentence.
The Gujarat High Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to disallow 25% of bogus purchases shown by Vijay Proteins Ltd., but quashed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
ITAT Delhi deleted a penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) against a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) for alleged non-compliance with a Section 142(1) notice.1 The court ruled that service of notice, not mere issuance, is mandatory, and lacking proof of service on the UK resident constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
