High Court quashed order u/s 148A(3) which was based on information received from DGGIGST related to fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC); Income Tax Department’s case was premised on report received from DGGI about fraudulent ITC worth more than Rs. 424 crores; HC concurred with assessee’s submission that in view of amendments of Finance Act, 2025 language of Section 148A has been changed and it harpson fairness and transparency in reassessment proceedings; HC kept the issue of legality and validity of notice under Section 148A(1) open, however it set-aside order under Section 148A(3).

ITAT deleted addition made u/s 69A holding that the reassessment proceeding was vitiated for being barred by limitation under first proviso to Section 149(1) and due to AO’s failure to supply copy of information along-with u/s 148A(b); As per ITAT, the entire action of reopening and consequential addition had been made on premature information received from VAT authorities and there was nothing on record to establish the allegation of unexplained cash in the hands of the Assessee; ITAT held that income tax proceedings are to be carried out on the basis of facts and material and it is not open to AO to make addition on the basis of guesswork, by referring to Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills case.

Bombay HC quashed order u/s 119(2)(b) and condoned delay of 70 days in filing audit report in Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2020-21; Relying on CBDT Circular No.16/2024, the CIT (E) had rejected the condonation application noting that it was filed beyond three years from the end of the relevant AY; AY 2020-21 was the first year when the due date to file the audit report was preponed by one month and the same was inadvertently not noticed by the Assessee or its CA; As per HC, not condoning such delay would have cause genuine hardship to the Assessee it had been denied exemption u/s 11 and a demand was raised for belated filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B.

ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order which deleted addition made u/s 36(1)(vii) by noting that there was no duplication of claim between deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia); Reliance placed on SC decision in Catholic Syrian Bank case; Legislature intended to restrict the claim of deduction towards bad-debts so that it does not exceed the provision made towards bad and doubtful debts; ITAT acceded to Assessee’s claim that the deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) is not in excess of the credit balance in the provision account; Coordinate bench orders in assessee’s own case also referred to.

ITAT allowed Assessee Trust’s claim of exemption u/s 11 which was denied by AO due to non-filing of Form 10B with ITR; Assessee is duly registered u/s 12A and had filed its ITR on 31/08/2019, however uploaded audit report in Form 10B on 04/09/2019; As per ITAT, the requirement of filing the audit report along with the ITR is directory and not mandatory in nature; Reliance placed on coordinate bench ruling in Assessee’s own case; It was not Revenue’s case that the Assessee was otherwise ineligible to claim exemption u/s 11.

Assessee filed ITR declaring income of Rs. 27.31 Cr and admitted tax liability of Rs. 8.72 Cr which was paid with a delay; Madras HC quashed criminal prosecution for offence u/s 276C for delayed deposition of tax; For mere default on payment of tax in time, the expression of wilful attempt to evade the tax should not be imported to do prosecution; Though Assessee delayed payment of tax despite notice, but the liability was fully discharged post such notice which negated any intent to evade tax even though Assessee was deemed a defaulter u/s 220(4); Prosecution u/s 276C(2) applies only in case of evasion arising from false entries, omissions, or acts enabling avoidance of tax.

Bombay HC quashed reassessment order noting that notice u/s 148 was already quashed by the co-ordinate bench; HC noted that notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 issued on 05/04/2022 was barred by limitation and ought to have been dropped pursuant to SC decision of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal; As per Rajeen Bansal ruling, for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or before April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; Re-assessment proceedings ought to have been dropped in view of the concession made by Revenue before SC.

ITAT deleted addition u/s 69 in respect of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period; ITAT noted that assessee had provided all details of cash deposits in the bank account and its source; As per ITAT, there was nothing on record to disbelieve the documents/details furnished by the Assessee; Also, ITAT condoned the delay of 198 days due to travelling of person entrusted with tax affairs to US, holding that there was nothing on record to doubt the bonafides of the reasoning given by the Assessee.

Telangana HC set aside reassessment proceedings including notice u/s 148, as it was held to be vitiated for being barred by limitation u/s 149(1); HC remarked that “the assessment year is 2017-18 and end of the relevant assessment year is 31.03.2024, so the period of limitation would be three years from 31.03.2018 till 31.03.2021. Even if it is four years, the period of limitation would come to an end on 31.03.2022 and the concerned show-cause notice has been issued on 31.03.2024”; W.r.t. the issue of notice being issued by the JAO instead of FAO, as per HC, entire proceedings would get vitiated for being initiated without jurisdiction since the notice u/s 148A(b) was issued by the JAO instead of FAO.

ITAT upheld addition u/s 69A w.r.t. unexplained cash seized during search; The term ‘if any’ stipulated in Section 69A clarifies that even in absence of books, unexplained money or valuable can be taxed; Mere declaration of cash for taxation does not by itself prove its genuineness or origin, unless the Assessee is able to demonstrate the source; ITAT rejected assessee’s contention that Section 69A is inapplicable sans books of accounts and also that Section 69A can be invoked only when unrecorded cash exists in maintained books.