Jageswar Saw Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court) The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging detention of an excavator and levy of penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, holding that incorrect declaration in transport documents and improper execution of delivery challan justified action by the tax authorities. […]
The Tribunal held that unrecovered advances made in the ordinary course of business can be allowed as business loss, even if they do not qualify as bad debts under section 36.
The Tribunal held that courses imparting practical skills qualify as vocational training even without guaranteed employment, allowing exemption under the notification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
The NCLT Bengaluru admitted insolvency proceedings against the Corporate Debtor after finding that loan documents, statements of accounts, and recall notices established existence of debt and default. The Tribunal held that once default is proved under Section 7 of the IBC, admission of the petition follows.
The Delhi High Court held that CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 clearly prescribed a maximum period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for seeking condonation of delay. Since the application for AY 2020-21 was filed after 31.03.2024, the Court upheld its rejection as time-barred.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of 100%. The Court held that only the income component embedded in disputed transactions could be taxed.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not continue where Revenue failed to establish any independent material connecting assessee to alleged cash transactions. Section 148 notice based solely on a broker’s seized register was quashed.
The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions for unexplained sales and investment could not survive once the CESTAT rejected allegations of clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted additions made under Sections 69A and 69C.
