Income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) was quashed as no sufficient time was given for reply and a personal hearing rendered the proceedings procedurally unfair and legally unsustainable.
Assessee had recorded the cash deposits as sales in the audited books of account, and no discrepancies were found by AO or CIT(A). Failure to provide PAN alone could not be the sole reason to treat the sales as unexplained money, particularly when Aadhaar details were submitted.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeals and upheld the assessments with the additions. It was held that search assessments were legally valid, JCIT had granted proper approval after due consideration, and the additions were based on incriminating material found during the search.
Where there exist conflicting test reports regarding conformity of imported goods to standards, the proper course was to allow the importer to respond to the show cause notice with all supporting documents, and for the authority to decide after affording a hearing whether provisional release under Section 110A could be granted.
Where CoC, in exercise of its commercial wisdom, rejected all resolution plans and approved liquidation with 100% voting share, NCLT must order liquidation of the Corporate Debtor under Section 33(2) of IBC.
Assessee could not file GST returns under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for about six months due to reasons beyond control, but was willing to comply with all pending formalities under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Conversion of MEIS shipping bills to the DEPB scheme was permissible where bills not ‘free shipping bills as the scale of examination under both schemes was similar and the non-examination of goods could not be attributed to the assessee.
Additions made under section 69A against assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 to 2018-19 was deleted as proceedings initiated on the basis of seized documents which did not mention assessee’s name were unsustainable.
In RCM there was no output tax liability because it was treated as exempt and, therefore, in tune with the objective of GST, credit of ITC could not be claimed in the absence of liability but same could be claimed by the recipient of service.
Tribunal upheld revision. It was held that once there was an inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 merely because he had a different opinion in the matter.
