The Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, citing questions on jurisdiction and compliance with CBDT circulars for alleged tax evasion.
The Supreme Court upheld mandatory pre-deposit conditions under the VAT law, ruling that appeals can be lawfully restricted by statutory payment requirements.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
High Court held that reassessment notices issued without adopting the faceless mechanism prescribed under the statutory scheme were invalid, vitiating all consequential proceedings.
The court held that notices meant to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer cannot be validly issued by a Jurisdictional Officer, quashing the notices while keeping Revenue’s rights open.
The court ruled that once purchases are found unproved, restricting additions to a profit percentage is incorrect. Full disallowance is required under Section 69C where genuineness is not established.
The Gujarat High Court upheld a Section 148 notice issued by the JAO during search and seizure under Section 132, ruling that faceless automated allocation is not mandatory in such cases.
High Court condones 1,257-day delay in filing Form 10B for AY 2016-17, recognizing that the petitioner filed returns manually on time and delay was due to bona fide professional oversight.
