The Gujarat High Court held that a GST cancellation notice lacking material particulars cannot sustain cancellation proceedings. The Court restored the registration after finding both the notice and cancellation order vague and non-speaking.
The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed under Section 47(iv) were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the parent company did not hold the entire share capital through itself or nominees.
The CESTAT Delhi held that transfer of land development rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not a taxable service. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand, holding that such transactions fall outside Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 271AAC cannot survive once the underlying Section 153C assessment is quashed. The Tribunal deleted the penalty after noting that the quantum assessment itself no longer existed.
ITAT Delhi held that electronic evidence seized during search proceedings cannot be relied upon without mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal ruled that initiation of Section 153C proceedings based on uncertified electronic records was invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that where sales are accepted and purchases are supported by invoices and banking transactions, only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be taxed. The Tribunal restricted the addition by applying the average profit rate instead of sustaining the entire disallowance.
The High Court quashed the GST cancellation proceedings after finding that the show cause notice did not specify the alleged contraventions or shortcomings. The Court held that absence of material particulars violated the prescribed procedure under GST law.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Tribunal ruled that additions proposed by CPC under Section 143(1)(a) ceased to survive after the Assessing Officer deleted them in the final scrutiny assessment order. As a result, further appeals relating to the original intimation became infructuous.
