ITAT restored Rs. 20 Cr in unsecured loans, interest, and squared-up loans for fresh verification, noting CIT(A) erred by deleting additions at the stroke of a pen. Large new loans and substantial repayments required independent checks on purpose and creditworthiness. The ruling reinforces that appellate deletion without inquiry violates Rule 46A and legal principles under sections 68 and 69.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a GST Show Cause Notice issued after the death of the proprietor is void ab initio, quashing both the notice and the resulting order. Recovery may proceed against the deceased’s estate.
Rs. 99.86 Cr out of Rs. 110 Cr added as current liabilities was deleted by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT. Verification of ledgers, statutory dues, and party confirmations showed actual liability reduction during the year. This highlights the role of detailed evidence in defending balance sheet claims.
The Court observed that relevant turnover and business details were not disclosed in the petition. It instructed the Petitioner to submit an affidavit providing turnover, business nature, and ITC details before proceeding with adjudication.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
Calcutta High Court set aside an income tax assessment order initiated in the name of a deceased individual, highlighting that proceedings must be directed to legal heirs.
The Court held that the deceased’s income had been wrongly computed at ₹84,000 and reassessed it at ₹1,00,000 based on available evidence. The ruling increased the compensation and reaffirmed principles for fair assessment in motor accident claims.
Gujarat High Court held that the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit of Compensation Cess is admissible even if the goods are exported on payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax [IGST]. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and refund is granted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be heard on merits after the CIT(A) dismissed it solely for a 45-day delay. It restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing that the delay issue not be reconsidered.
Delhi High Court held that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unwarranted since efficacious alternative remedies under DRT and NCLT. Accordingly, writ petition is misconceived.
