The Court held that the assessment confirmed without a reply warranted reconsideration. It remanded the case for fresh adjudication upon filing of response and documents.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational, disputes must be pursued through the statutory appeal mechanism. It directed filing of appeal within prescribed timelines.
The Court held that where corresponding sales are accepted, only the profit element in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. It upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 10% and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The case examined whether contract receipts reflected in Form 26AS but not disclosed as income could be taxed. The Tribunal upheld the addition, ruling that failure to report such receipts in any year makes them taxable in the year of receipt.
The Court held that the case primarily involved documentary evidence and asset control during liquidation. It granted anticipatory bail, noting custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The issue was whether third-party diaries using code “DD” can justify 153C action. ITAT held that without clear identification and corroboration, such evidence is insufficient and proceedings are invalid.
The issue was whether compensation paid to flat buyers was capital or revenue expenditure. The Court held it to be revenue expenditure as it was incurred for business purposes and commercial expediency.
The issue concerns vague GST cancellation notices lacking facts. Courts held that absence of details violates natural justice and invalidates proceedings.
The issue is India’s scattered legal framework for organised crime. The analysis highlights that lack of a unified law weakens enforcement and calls for comprehensive reforms.
The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was excessive despite lack of full documentation. It allowed 50% deduction considering business necessity. Key takeaway: partial evidence can justify partial allowance.
