The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 44AD, recognizing the small kirana shop’s sales and deposits as genuine business income. Bank deposits corresponded with daily sales, and withdrawals matched purchase requirements, showing a consistent business pattern.
The Court allowed forensic examination of an advocate’s seized CPU under strict safeguards after a GST search raised concerns about attorney-client privilege. It directed limited access, mandated presence of IT experts, and prohibited coercive action pending further review.
The Court held that a reassessment notice generated on time but uploaded the next day is time-barred. Proceedings were set aside because despatch, not generation, determines the date of issuance.
The Court allowed a petitioner to file an appeal on classification of exported goods and sought clarification on which authority can issue SCNs under Customs and GST laws.
ITAT held that discretionary trusts with unknown beneficiary shares must be taxed at the maximum marginal rate unless statutory exceptions apply, restoring the matter for verification.
The Court set aside an appeal dismissal due to one-day notice for personal hearing. The petitioner will now have a proper hearing with at least a week’s notice.
Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessing Officer examined cash deposits and adopted a permissible view by treating them as sales. Since the issue had been enquired into and two views were possible, revision under Section 263 could not be justified.
The ruling clarifies that the appellant’s remaining limitation period revived in full once the COVID-related exclusion ended. The tribunal found that the petitions filed in August 2022 fell within the recomputed timeline. The decision underscores that the 90-day rule applies only where the remaining limitation is shorter.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 74 cannot be sustained without findings of fraud, misstatement, or suppression. The appellate order was modified and refund with interest was directed.
The High Court held that forklifts and cranes with on/off-road capability fall within Section 2(28) and require compliance with registration and tax provisions. Machinery designed for off-highway use but capable of road travel cannot claim exemption.
