Court held that a legal representative’s liability is limited to inherited assets and set aside attachment because no evidence showed petitioner inherited property from firm’s partners.
The authority’s rejection was held unsustainable because it relied on an incorrect interpretation of the circular governing delayed Form 10B filings. The Court granted relief to the petitioner.
The Tribunal held that MAT relief under section 115JB cannot continue once a company’s net worth becomes positive, as the scheme required only consideration—not automatic grant—of exemption.
The Court found that authorities incorrectly initiated Section 130 action based on survey findings, reaffirming that excess stock cases must follow the mechanism in Sections 73/74.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 130 could not be invoked for excess stock found during survey. Orders were set aside and refund directed.
The Court held that failure to fill Part B of the e-way bill, caused by a technical error, did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside due to lack of findings on evasion intent.
The Court quashed the adjudication and appellate orders after finding that the prescribed Circular on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A discrepancies was not followed. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
Tribunal held that civil, plumbing and electrical charges paid to builder formed part of the acquisition cost and allowed claim. It held that embedded fixtures qualify for deduction, while travel expenses unrelated to transfer do not.
