Penalty imposed under Section 271AAA was set aside, holding that only the Assessing Officer is empowered to levy such penalty. The Tribunal further ruled that once quantum addition is deleted, penalty cannot survive.
The High Court held that Rule 86A does not permit blocking of input tax credit beyond the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Negative balance entries were set aside as unsustainable.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order as no personal hearing was granted, even though notices were uploaded on the portal. The Court held that mere portal service without effective opportunity violates principles of fairness.
The Bombay High Court held that a pending penalty appeal qualifies as a “dispute” under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Rejection solely for absence of assessment appeal was set aside
The Tribunal held that disallowance based solely on tax audit reporting required factual verification. The issue was remanded for examining whether the power liability provision was wrongly treated as contingent.
The Tribunal held that mere non-participation in inquiry and reliance on government-issued IEC and GSTIN cannot establish breach of CBLR obligations. Licence revocation and penalty were quashed for lack of evidence.
ITAT Mumbai upheld deletion of ₹6 crore addition after lenders responded to notices under Section 133(6) and confirmed transactions. Verified evidence and absence of deficiencies proved loan genuineness.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains could not be treated as bogus where documentary evidence supported the transactions and no material connected the assessee to price manipulation. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The case involved additions for alleged suppressed sales and purchases based on seized digital material. The Tribunal ruled that once search material exists, the AO must invoke Section 148 with proper approval, making the 143(3) assessment legally unsustainable.
The ITAT deleted addition under Section 69A where cash deposits were made in a joint account. Since the husband owned the deposits and was not cross-examined, taxing the wife was held unjustified.
