Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
The Ministry of Finance issued Notification 46/2025-Customs, reducing the import duty and AIDC on Yellow Peas to 10% and 20% respectively, effective November 1, 2025.
The Tribunal held that detailed inquiries by the AO made Section 263 inapplicable and upheld the assessee’s claims for capital loss and bad debts on merits.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
Non-service of notice and denial of hearing before adjudication under Section 73 violates Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the demand order passed ex parte under Section 73 in such circumstances was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming that Rs.14.11 crore surplus from perpetual sale of film rights, copyrights, and intellectual property to a third party should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), not Business Income.
In the case of Deepak Jain v. Income Tax Department, the ITAT Delhi held that the BMA cannot be applied to foreign companies and bank accounts that ceased to exist before 1 July 2015, and that once proceedings were pursued under the IT Act rather than the BMA, the revenue may not shift to BMA under doctrine of election.
Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and supported by evidence, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element can be added, restricting disallowance to ₹8,075 as per Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co.
Bombay High Court dismisses Revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs N.N. Trading Corporation, holding no substantial question of law arises in dispute over gross profit estimation on bogus purchases.
ITAT Special Bench rules that may in Black Money Act Sec 43 means penalty is discretionary, not mandatory, requiring AO to consider assessee’s explanation before levy.
