ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposited during demonetization period deleted to the extent of cash sales which is accepted. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained to the extent AO duly examined the issue during scrutiny assessment proceedings and plausible view taken after proper application of mind.
According to the department, the overvalued export was used by the exporter to fraudulently procure DEPB scrips from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and subsequently these DEPB scrips were sold in the open market and were thereafter used by companies to import goods without payment of duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 114 of the Customs Act can be levied only if the goods are held liable to confiscation u/s. 113 of the Customs Act. Here, as the confiscation cannot be sustained, penalty u/s. 114 of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained.
Madras High Court held that input tax credit [ITC] which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act], but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act cannot be denied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that applying Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] of CBDT, a cash deposit of 2,50,000/- by an individual without business income should be treated as prima facie explained. Hence, addition u/s. 69 to that extent is not justifiable.
Supreme Court held that partners of the partnership firm can be prosecuted individually under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NI Act] without the partnership firm being arraigned as an accused. Accordingly, order of high court set aside.
Accordingly, the said order dated February 15, 2025 is hereby set aside. Consequentially, the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said orders are also quashed, in view of the genesis of such proceedings itself being a nullity in the eye of law.
Supreme Court held that partners of the partnership firm can be prosecuted individually under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NI Act] without the partnership firm being arraigned as an accused. Accordingly, order of high court set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of gold bar not justified since the smuggled nature of the gold has not been established by the department and the appellant has produced evidence of purchase of the gold from domestic sources. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
