Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
The Court held that Section 44AF, as a special provision, overrides the requirements of Section 139(9). It ruled that treating the return as defective was unjustified and directed issuance of the refund.
The Tribunal observed that Form 67 was available before 143(1) processing, making the denial of FTC unjustified. It set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to grant FTC after verification.
The Court held that extended pre-trial detention would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial. It relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged incarceration in documentary-based cases. Bail was therefore granted on strict terms.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Court held that the appellate authority set aside a refund without proper scrutiny or reasoning. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on whether the services constituted export or intermediary services.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
The Delhi High Court seeks an explanation for why certain GST demands were dropped despite the officer stating disagreement, highlighting procedural inconsistencies in tax assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessees misunderstanding about the relevance of quantum proceedings justified remanding the 271B penalty order. The AO is directed to consider the assessees factual explanations without unnecessary adjournments.
ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment under Section 147, ruling that reopening based on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.
