Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Additions under ss. 69A and 69B were examined on whether they could rest primarily on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) and generalized references to digital material. It was held that, absent identification of any specific incriminating seized document and without corroborative evidence of unexplained money or investment, the deeming provisions could not be invoked; the seized cash/jewellery already stood offered as business income from land-deal activity and was taxable u/s 28, not u/ss. 69A/69B r/w s. 115BBE, so these additions were deleted. On brokerage, addition was sustained where there was clear admission of receipt from both sides, but deleted for another transaction where no admission existed and the AO's 1% estimate lacked documentary/third-party support; CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. - ITAT
Additions under ss. 69A and 69B were examined on whether they could rest primarily on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) and generalized references to digital material. It was held that, absent identification of any specific incriminating seized document and without corroborative evidence of unexplained money or investment, the deeming provisions could not be invoked; the seized cash/jewellery already stood offered as business income from land-deal activity and was taxable u/s 28, not u/ss. 69A/69B r/w s. 115BBE, so these additions were deleted. On brokerage, addition was sustained where there was clear admission of receipt from both sides, but deleted for another transaction where no admission existed and the AO's 1% estimate lacked documentary/third-party support; CIT(A)'s order was affirmed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
