New Delhi, Aug 31 (PTI) A record 7.5 crore income tax returns have been filed for Assessment Year 2026-27 so far, and the number is expected to rise further as the filing deadline ends at midnight Monday for taxpayers with business or professional income who are not subject to audit. Till Monday afternoon, a record of over 7.5 crore ITRs had been filed. This also includes more than 5.9 crore ITR-1 and ITR-2 forms filed by the July 31 due date. Last year, over 7.3 crore ITRs were filed by S... ... ...

RTI access to EPCG licence records requires the CPIO to rely on a valid statutory exemption; an assertion that a company director should already possess the records cannot justify refusal. The right covers existing, available records held by the public authority, not creation of information, inferences or explanations. Broad requests for entire files and note sheets may require clarification or supporting documents. Once entitlement is verified, relevant available material must be disclosed after severing commercial-confidence and personal third-party information.

Manufacturers of alcoholic liquor for human consumption could obtain C-Forms for interstate procurement of Extra Neutral Alcohol while the GST Council had deferred its decision on the alcohol's GST treatment and directed maintenance of the status quo. Status quo preserved the pre-GST position; denying C-Forms would disrupt interstate procurement and impair the manufacturers' trade. A later amendment excluding Extra Neutral Alcohol used for such manufacture from the charging provision did not retrospectively justify denial of C-Forms for the intervening period.

Separately recovered electricity charges, including charges for electricity generated through DG sets, are treated as consideration for trading in goods rather than for renting of immovable property where recovered on actual consumption under lease arrangements. Electricity generation constitutes manufacture or production of goods, while trading in goods falls within the negative list. As renting, common-area maintenance, and electricity were separately charged, electricity supply cannot be bundled with renting because bundling requires two taxable services. Actual-consumption recoveries also qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST and are excluded from the taxable value of renting.

Supreme Court clarification that the impugned demand was not stayed bound the Tribunal and prevented continuation of interim protection against coercive recovery. The earlier restraint on recovery had been obtained without disclosing that clarification, contrary to the duty to approach a judicial forum with clean hands and without forum shopping. The interim direction restraining coercive action was therefore recalled, the Revenue's miscellaneous application was disposed of, and the appeal was listed for further hearing.

Service-tax liability for wet leasing of booster compressors is in issue where the arrangement may involve supply of tangible goods or a transfer of the right to use, potentially constituting a deemed sale under Article 366(29-A). The dispute concerns possession and effective control and the applicability of service-tax provisions during 2008-09 to 2014-15. Notice has been issued, but the impugned demand remains unstayed.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenges to provisional attachment ordinarily proceed through adjudication and appeals under the statutory mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction. Judicial review remains exceptional and requires a patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest illegality. Disputes over the source of assets, their connection with proceeds of crime, and the evidentiary basis for attachment are factual matters for the Adjudicating Authority and appellate forums. A tax-paid declaration of gold does not by itself establish a lawful source or prevent money-laundering proceedings. Earlier retention proceedings after search and seizure do not bar a subsequent provisional attachment based on material supporting a reason to believe that property represents proceeds of crime.

Unexplained cash-credit additions require the assessee to establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Credits unsupported by a response to statutory notice, confirmation, income-tax return or bank statement remain liable to addition because the initial evidential burden is not discharged. Conversely, confirmations, creditor responses, income-tax returns and bank statements can establish the required elements and shift the onus to the Assessing Officer. Relief is justified where the Assessing Officer produces no material rebutting that evidence, and where disputed entries are shown to be casting errors, attributable to another group concern, or absent from the assessee's books.

Mutuality-based exemption for members' contributions disclosed in the business-income schedule cannot be denied during return processing solely because an inadvertent electronic-filing error omitted those receipts from the exempt-income schedule. Correct total income must be determined on the substantive eligibility of the claim rather than a technical schedule omission. The exemption claim requires verification and determination in accordance with law, with the matter remitted for consideration and grant of eligible exemption.

Disallowance of labour charges for alleged non-deduction of tax at source requires reconciliation between total claimed labour charges and the amount on which tax was deducted before the disallowance provision can be applied. The issue is remitted for factual verification and fresh adjudication on merits. Addition for undisclosed rental income similarly requires substantiation of opening and closing rent receivables, reconciliation of rental receipts, and corroborative evidence. This issue is also remitted for verification and fresh adjudication after a fair hearing, without any finding on the merits of either addition.

Documented demat-account and NRE-bank-account entries supporting purchases and sales of shares, including multiple scrip transactions, substantiate the claimed short-term capital loss. Investigation material concerning an alleged penny-stock company cannot, without an independent inquiry linking the taxpayer to price rigging, market manipulation, accommodation entries, or adverse statements, displace that evidence. A materially similar prior-year determination concerning the same scrip supports carry-forward of the loss. Additions for unexplained cash credit and unexplained expenditure are unsustainable where sale consideration and commission lack an independent evidentiary basis.

Rejection of registration under section 12AB required fresh adjudication where fair opportunity warranted allowing submission of relevant documents before the competent authority. Approval under section 80G was consequential to the registration application and required reconsideration together with it. Both applications were remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, without any view on their merits.

Section 153A jurisdiction requires a search under Section 132 against the person assessed. Where no search warrant exists in the assessee's name, a warrant issued for other persons sharing the premises does not establish that requirement. For an unabated assessment, additions under Section 153A must also rest on incriminating material found during the search and linked to those additions. In the absence of a search against the assessee and of such material, assumption of jurisdiction and the resulting additions are invalid.

Penalty for concealment cannot survive where the underlying reassessment has been quashed. Reopening beyond four years required recorded reasons alleging the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure in the original assessment. As no such allegation was recorded, the quantum reassessment was invalid; its cancellation extinguished the foundation for penalty under section 271(1)(c), requiring cancellation of the penalty.

Treatment of an entire mutual-fund investment as unexplained income requires examination of the source of deposits and whether any amount represents reinvestment. The assessee's NRI status, asserted banking source, and additional investment evidence require consideration. Where the assessment and first appellate proceedings have not effectively adjudicated the addition on merits, fresh adjudication is required after allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence. The entire investment cannot be treated as unexplained without examining these matters.

Cash deposits coupled with non-filing of a return despite taxable income before Chapter VI-A deduction provide a basis for reopening assessment where the prescribed reassessment procedure precedes notice issuance. For assessment years governed by the post-1 April 2018 amendment to section 80AC, furnishing the return within the due date under section 139(1) is a mandatory precondition for claiming deduction under section 80P. Deduction provisions require strict construction, and delayed filing cannot be condoned. Consequently, reassessment is sustained and the claimed Chapter VI-A deduction remains unavailable.

Cash-deposit additions under the unexplained-money provisions require examination of the taxpayer's financial statements, bank statements, submissions and ledger extracts where these materials are furnished to explain deposits during demonetisation. Confirming an addition for insufficient documentation without considering available evidence does not permit a proper determination of the deposits' source. The addition was therefore set aside for fresh assessment, with an opportunity for the taxpayer to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.

Payment of tax due on returned income is a statutory condition for admission of an income-tax appeal under Section 249(4). Non-payment of the requisite self-assessment tax, despite opportunities to comply and directions regarding disputed tax payment, renders the appeal inadmissible. Refusal to admit such an appeal is valid where the statutory precondition remains unmet.

Explanation 1(c) to Section 263 permits revision of income heads not considered and decided in a pending appeal. Accordingly, revision could cover omitted income from house property and income from other sources, although an excess-stock addition was under appeal. The assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue only to the extent it excluded those returned non-business income heads from total income. Revision could not direct addition of the entire returned income, because the assessment record showed inquiry into excess stock and computation of business income from the books. The revisionary correction was therefore confined to the omitted non-business income.

Unexplained-investment additions require factual verification where additional bank records and supporting documents are produced to establish the source of advances. The additions must be deleted if the additional evidence is found genuine on verification. Interest income cannot be added under the residual income provision where the actual interest received and offered to tax exceeds the interest computed from seized material. The reflected real-estate business in the HUF return further supports the disclosed position. Accordingly, the interest-income additions do not survive, while source-based additions remain subject to verification and consequential deletion upon substantiation.