The ITAT Chandigarh held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiry or verification of creditors. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to sundry creditors and business transactions supported by documents and banking records.
CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Order. The Authority imposed a penalty and directed future compliance with mandatory standards.
GSTAT held that the builder failed to uniformly pass on additional GST input tax credit benefits to homebuyers in a housing project. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered amount with 18% interest.
The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
The case involved GST proceedings initiated after alleged excess stock was found during a factory survey. The Court held that Section 130 proceedings were wrongly initiated and invalidated the confiscation-related orders passed by the authorities.
High Court held that customs regulations require verification through reliable documents and data, not mandatory physical inspection of a client’s premises.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. It relied on CBDT Instruction prescribing monetary limits. The ruling highlights strict adherence to jurisdictional norms.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
The court held that initiating proceedings under the penalty provision for alleged excess stock discovered during a survey was improper. It ruled that such cases must be dealt with under assessment provisions, leading to quashing of the order.
