The ITAT Mumbai held that purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus merely based on Sales Tax Department information when the assessee produced invoices, bank statements, stock records, and delivery challans. The Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the alleged non-genuine purchases, if any, should be taxed.
The Court granted interim relief in a petition challenging GST under RCM on development rights. It recognized the issue as already under judicial scrutiny in a similar case.
The Court granted interim relief as the issue matched an earlier pending case. It ensured consistency in judicial approach and protected the taxpayer.
The issue was whether cash deposits from business sales could be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. ITAT held that recorded cash sales forming part of turnover cannot be taxed as unexplained credits.
The Bombay High Court set aside a settlement order where the department adjusted a refund of one tax period against dues of another under the MVAT Amnesty Scheme.
The Court held that once arrears for later years were settled under the Settlement Act, no outstanding demand survived. Adjusting earlier refunds against settled dues was declared illegal and without authority of law.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an income tax appeal where the disputed claim was below the monetary threshold, highlighting that low tax effect alone can justify disposal when no exception applies.
Tribunal condoned a 938-day delay after finding that the appeal was incorrectly dismissed as withdrawn under VSVS. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the additions made under section 143(3).
Bombay High Court held that once appellate authorities delete a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), no substantial question of law arises. Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Bombay High Court set aside the Section 148 notice, reiterating that only the Faceless Assessing Officer possesses the statutory power to issue it. The ruling was based on the binding precedent of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.
