Related-party creditor exclusion bars CoC participation where lender rights show policy-making involvement, and post-CIRP assignment cannot cure ineli...
Rectification of apparent typographical errors may proceed without hearing when tax liability, input tax credit, and ruling substance remain unchanged...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the revised return of income filed by the assessee cannot be treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer (AO). Since the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) based on the revised return and completed the assessment considering the same, the revised return should be deemed valid. Consequently, no addition u/s 68 for the cash difference between the original and revised returns is warranted. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department did not dispute the turnover admitted in the revised VAT returns, which reflected an increase in sales. The closing stock and cash on hand matched the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the revised return of income filed by the assessee cannot be treated as invalid by the Assessing Officer (AO). Since the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) based on the revised return and completed the assessment considering the same, the revised return should be deemed valid. Consequently, no addition u/s 68 for the cash difference between the original and revised returns is warranted. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Department did not dispute the turnover admitted in the revised VAT returns, which reflected an increase in sales. The closing stock and cash on hand matched the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
