In this landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, reinforcing the stringent threshold for ‘substantial questions of law’ under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that post-search assessments must be framed under s. 153A, not s. 143(3), and validated the deletion of additions for unexplained purchases, stock discrepancies, and suppressed sales. Key takeaways: (1) The High Court cannot re-appreciate factual findings unless they are perverse, a question not raised here; (2) Once books are rejected under s. 145(3), they cannot be selectively used to sustain additions; (3) Uniformity in interpreting central laws like the IT Act is crucial, as highlighted by the Tribunal’s reliance on an Indore Bench ruling. This decision underscores the finality of Tribunal fact-finding and limits Revenue’s appellate scope to pure legal errors.

In this landmark judgment by the Ahmedabad Tribunal, the court delved into the jurisdictional boundaries between Section 142A and Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of capital gains taxation. The assessee sold ancestral land and adopted FMV as on 01.04.1981 per a Registered Valuer’s report. The AO’s reference to the DVO under Section 142A was challenged as ultra vires, given that Section 142A is confined to Sections 69, 69A, and 69B matters, not overvaluation of pre-1981 assets. The DVO’s subsequent report under Section 55A was deemed invalid due to jurisdictional overreach. The Tribunal’s ratio decidendi underscores that tax authorities must strictly adhere to statutory mandates; references under wrong provisions and actions beyond delegated authority vitiate the entire proceeding. This decision reinforces procedural sanctity in tax assessments, protecting assessees from arbitrary valuation references.

In this landmark ruling by the Delhi ITAT, the Revenue’s appeal challenging the deletion of additions for deemed dividend and TDS disallowance was dismissed. The Tribunal reinforced the principle that loans attracting interest and made in the ordinary business course, especially when the lender company’s income substantially comes from interest, are not deemed dividends u/s 2(22)(e). It clarified that such provisions target sham transactions, not genuine commercial dealings. Additionally, it held that payments for testing charges in work contracts do not fall under ‘professional/technical services’ u/s 194J, thus no TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies. This decision provides critical guidance for taxpayers on structuring inter-corporate loans and TDS compliance in contract-based businesses.

In this landmark judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, addressed critical issues in reassessment and bogus purchase cases. The Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated solely on DGIT information without AO’s independent application of mind, reinforcing the ‘reason to believe’ standard under Section 147. On substantive grounds, it balanced revenue’s concerns with assessee’s rights by upholding additions but restricting them to peak credit methodology and a 12.5% profit estimation, citing precedents like N.K. Proteins Ltd. and Simit P Sheth. The decision clarifies that banking channel payments alone do not discharge the assessee’s burden under Section 69C when suppliers are bogus, and natural justice pleas must be raised timely. This ruling provides a nuanced framework for handling accommodation entries in trading businesses.

In this landmark judgment, the ITAT Indore Bench meticulously dissected the exemption claim under section 10(23C)(iiiab) by M.P. Rajya Open School, a state-formed society for open school education. The Tribunal reinforced the dual statutory mandate: institutions must exist solely for education without profit motive and be substantially government-financed. While acknowledging judicial precedents that permit incidental surpluses (e.g., Delhi High Court in St. Lawrence Educational Society), the Tribunal found the assessee’s massive profit generation (crores in surplus) and minimal government funding (only one grant decades prior) fatal to its claim. The decision underscores that ‘substantially financed’ implies near-total government support, and profit magnitude can reveal a non-educational primary object. This ruling serves as a critical reference for educational entities navigating exemption thresholds, emphasizing strict compliance with both purpose and funding criteria under the Income Tax Act.

In this landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court clarified the hierarchy between the Companies Act 1956 and the Income Tax Act 1961 in the context of company liquidation. The court ruled that the Income Tax Officer cannot unilaterally issue a notice under Section 178 of the Income Tax Act to secure tax recovery from a company in liquidation without obtaining prior leave from the company court under Section 446 of the Companies Act. The judgment reinforces that tax debts do not automatically enjoy priority over other debts unless they qualify as preferential under Section 530 of the Companies Act. The court affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the company court to decide questions of priority, protecting the pari passu distribution principle essential to winding-up proceedings. This decision safeguards the integrity of liquidation processes against arbitrary revenue claims.

In this landmark judgment, the Nagpur High Court clarified the tax treatment of compensation received for compulsory acquisition of leasehold interests. The Court held that compensation paid for the premature termination of a leasehold interest, constituting a capital asset, is a capital receipt and not taxable as business income. This decision reinforces the distinction between capital and revenue receipts, emphasizing that the purpose of the payment (to acquire a capital asset) determines its nature, not the method of calculation. The ruling provides crucial guidance for businesses facing similar acquisition scenarios under Indian tax law.

In this landmark ruling by the Mumbai ITAT, the Tribunal reinforced the cardinal principles governing Section 68 additions for share capital. The assessee successfully demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions through comprehensive documentation, including PANs, IT returns, bank statements, and corporate resolutions. The Tribunal categorically held that the assessee is not required to prove the ‘source of the source’ and that the 2012 proviso to Section 68 lacks retrospective effect. Distinguishing key precedents, the decision underscores that mere suspicion or non-response to notices cannot override concrete evidence. This judgment provides critical clarity for taxpayers facing reassessment based on survey/search actions, emphasizing that procedural reopening under Section 148 is permissible, but substantive additions must be backed by material to dislodge the assessee’s prima facie case.