The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the alleged GST offence, involving liability below Rs. 5 crore, was non-cognizable under the GST framework. The applicant’s request for pre-arrest protection was accordingly dismissed.
The Madras High Court held that failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act. It further ruled that penalty under Section 125 is permissible where no separate penalty is prescribed for such default.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
The Kerala High Court set aside a consolidated notice issued for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25. It held that separate notices must be issued for each assessment year in line with earlier precedents.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that funds received by a Chartered Accountant for remitting clients’ taxes could not be treated as unexplained money. Documentary evidence showing corresponding tax payments led to deletion of the additions.
