The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge to the Bombay High Court ruling that quashed a Section 132 search action for failure to satisfy jurisdictional conditions. The question of law was kept open.
The Bombay High Court held that the search authorisation under Section 132 was invalid because the satisfaction note lacked relevant material and failed to establish a genuine reason to believe. The Court quashed the search and all consequential proceedings.
The Bombay High Court held that GST deposited during investigation before adjudication could not be treated as voluntary payment. The Court directed refund of Rs.3 crore with interest if delayed.
Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It held that presumptions and unverified notings cannot replace concrete evidence.
The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were properly documented and routed through banking channels. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the transactions represented unaccounted income.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, observing that preventing business operations would adversely affect tax recovery. Restoration was made subject to filing pending returns and payment of dues.
ITAT Indore held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied when investment in new agricultural land was made within the prescribed two-year period. The Tribunal ruled that procedural non-compliance with the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme was not sufficient to reject the claim.
RBI has abolished the mandatory Investment Fluctuation Reserve requirement for commercial banks following changes in market risk and investment regulations. Banks must now transfer existing IFR balances to reserves or profit and loss accounts.
Mumbai ITAT held that unsecured loans received through banking channels and fully recorded in books cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A merely on suspicion. The addition and consequential interest disallowance were deleted in full.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely because a liability remains unpaid for a long period. In absence of any waiver, remission, or cessation of liability, the addition was rightly deleted.
