ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment should be considered where property consideration was fixed earlier and payments were made through banking channels before registration.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A without granting a prior hearing violated principles of natural justice and caused serious civil consequences.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction under Section 153C is not a mechanical exercise and must clearly establish the relevance of seized material to the assessee’s income.
The Bombay High Court held that rejection of a manual GST appeal was unsustainable where DRC-07 was not available on the GST portal. The matter was remanded for reconsideration under the proviso to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
Delhi HC held that proviso to Section 45 of PMLA grants discretionary relief to women accused and stringent twin bail conditions would not ordinarily apply unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in FORM GST REG-19 was illegal and violated statutory requirements. The Court restored the matter and granted the taxpayer fresh opportunity to respond.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
