The Assessing Officer treated all cash deposits as unexplained income under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal held that deposits prima facie represented IOC sales and required factual verification before any addition.
The government has proposed amending valuation rules to mandate a minimum paid-up capital for RVOs. The key takeaway is that recognition standards may soon include a financial threshold with a transition period.
The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The issue concerned reassessment initiated through a non-faceless notice despite a binding notification. The ruling confirms that violation of the faceless framework vitiates reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based on a notice issued by the wrong authority cannot survive in law. The decision highlights strict adherence to procedural requirements under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s power to remand an ex-parte assessment for fresh adjudication. It ruled that such action was within jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the assessment order was set aside. The Tribunal held that once the basis of the addition is extinguished, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that reassessment remains valid when the notice is issued while the company is still on the ROC records. Subsequent striking off does not nullify initiated proceedings.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that no personal hearing was granted under Section 75(4). The ruling reiterates that adverse GST orders cannot be passed without following mandatory hearing requirements.
The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was not given at assessment or appellate stage. The ₹17.94 lakh addition was remanded for fresh adjudication.
