HC struck down the JAO-FAO retrospective amendment vide Section 147A as unconstitutional; Section 147A retrospective amendment was in conflict with 9 High Court judgments; Post the retrospective amendment, Section 147A and Section 151A exist simultaneously, thereby resulting in confusion and not clarity; Retrospective amendment does not meet the key test of 'random automated allocation', as envisaged u/s 151A/faceless scheme; S. 147A held to be silent w.r.t. categorical findings returned by constitutional courts that as per the S. 151A scheme, allocation of AOs is required to be done randomly and through automated allocation.

Rajasthan HC sets aside the orders of the Tribunal, Adjudicating Authority and consequential attachment, remanding the matter to the Initiating Officer for fresh adjudication; Holds, relying on Andaman Timber Industries, that denial of cross-examination of a witness whose retracted statement formed the foundation of the benami finding violated natural justice; Company has no absolute immunity from being a benamidar merely because it is a corporate entity, provided, the relevant conditions under the PBPT Act r.w. parameters laid down by SC in Valliamal decision are met; Clearance u/s 69 of Income Tax cannot mechanically become a benami clearance; PBPT operates independently, with the IO bearing the initial burden under Section 2(9)(A).

Bombay HC quashes prosecution under Section 276C(2), holding that the provision requires a "wilful attempt" to evade tax, penalty or interest; Neither "wilful" nor "attempt" is defined in the Act, while the Explanation specifies four categories of attempts; Relying on S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, HC holds that "wilful" denotes a conscious and deliberate act, importing concept of mens rea; Mere delay, failure, unintentional/accidental conduct or genuine inability cannot attract prosecution; As a penal provision, the complaint must specifically allege and establish the assessee's wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest.

ITAT held that consideration paid to a Malaysian Associate Enterprise for outright purchase of software could not be considered as 'royalty' in terms of Explanation to Section 9(1)(vii) r.w. Article 12 of India-Malaysia DTAA, thus making TDS u/s 195 inapplicable; Transaction was an outright purchase rather than licencing permit; Amount received by associate enterprise for sale of the software constituted its business receipts and since the AE did not have a permanent establishment in India, such business profits were not taxable in India under Article 7.

Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment u/s 147/148 was invalid where the AO's reasons were founded entirely on seized material and the satisfaction note arising from a third-party search, without independent tangible material; Following jurisdictional Bombay HC's ruling in Sejal Jewellery, ITAT held that Sections 153A/153C assume primacy where assessment is based on search material; Though Delhi HC in case of Naveen Kumar Gupta held that Section 147 is not automatically barred where Section 153C is not invoked, ITAT held it inapplicable to the present 2019 reopening for AY 2011-12 under the unamended Section 153C. Accordingly, reassessment was quashed.

ITAT held that for AY 24-25, assessee is entitled to rebate u/s 87A against the income tax payable on the total income including tax payable on short-term capital gains chargeable u/s 111A; Reliance placed on ITAT Chennai ruling in Venkedapathy Venugopal and Ahmedabad ITAT ruling in Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana; ITAT concluded that rebate u/s 87A of the Act was allowable from the income-tax payable on the total income, without excluding the tax payable on short-term capital gains chargeable u/s 111A; ITAT thus granted the rebate and directed AO to recompute the tax liability.

ITAT held that cost of land purchased prior to the transfer of the original asset constituted to be part of the cost of the new residential house for the purpose of Section 54F exemption; Expression employed in the statute (Sec. 54F) is "constructed" and not "purchase of land after the date of transfer"; As per ITAT, artificial segregation of the value of land from residential unit would defeat the object of Section 54F; Section 54F is a beneficial provision enacted to encourage investment in residential housing and once the substantive conditions are fulfilled, the benefit should not be denied on the basis of an interpretation importing conditions not expressly found in the statute.

HC held that advances received cannot be regarded as forfeited due to the lapse of time (i.e., 8 years) and due to absence of a refund claim, since the advances were still treated as liabilities in the assessee's books; The advances were entrusted for procuring land for the parties' projects, not towards transfer of the assessee's capital asset; Since section 56(2)(ix) requires both receipt during negotiations for transfer of a capital asset and forfeiture, neither condition was satisfied in instant case; In ordinary course of assessee's business, the lands proposed to be acquired would partake the character of stock-in-trade and not capital assets.

ITAT directed AO to exclude assessee's salary income received from Australian employer, from the total income of the Assessee since the services were rendered in Australia and Assessee received salary in lieu of such services; Article 15 of India-Australia DTAA was referred to as per which salary would be taxable only in the state where services were rendered; Assessee inadvertently offered salary from Australian employer, for taxation in India, ITAT also pointed out that the Assessee also filed Form 67 to seek foreign tax credit for taxes paid in Australia; Later, the Assessee also filed a rectification for exclusion of salary income from taxation in India, however the same was rejected by the Revenue.

ITAT restored matter to AO on issue of non-admissibility of Bad debts; As per ITAT, requirement of providing the Assessee with responses received by AO u/s 133(6) is not merely procedural but goes to the root of the principles of natural justice; Regarding discrepancies in remand report, ITAT noted that AO had recorded in respect of certain parties that no response was received to 133(6) notices, whereas records indicated that partial replies were received from those very parties; Whether a debt has commercially become irrecoverable is primarily a business decision of the Assessee and deduction cannot be denied merely because the AO entertains a different perception on recoverability.