The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the applicant was absconding and implicated in a fraudulent lottery cybercrime. Bail was denied considering the nature of offences under IPC and IT Act.
The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
The AO treated all commission and part of rent as bogus due to limited vouchers, no TDS, and identity gaps. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent with the AO’s own initial proposal and disproportionate to the business realities of land-development. It concluded that only estimated disallowances of 20% commission and 50% rent were appropriate.
Tribunal held that delays caused by pandemic disruptions and internal management-auditor communication issues constitute reasonable cause under Section 274, deleting ₹2.42 lakh penalty.
The Court held that the petitioner challenged a 7A order without first using the statutory appeal under Section 7-I. The writ was dismissed as Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent prescribed remedies.
The Tribunal held that export duty must be based on the final invoice and BRC, rejecting reliance on CRCL moisture results. The case was remanded for fresh computation of refund and interest.
The addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
ITAT Agra held that purchases made by a tenant cannot be attributed to the landlord, deleting ₹2.50 crore addition for alleged bogus meat purchases, emphasizing factual accuracy in assessments.
The Allahabad HC held that the show cause notice under Section 74 was invalid as it did not specify fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, quashing the notice.
