The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be fully treated as undisclosed when income was declared under section 44AD. The key takeaway is acceptance of presumptive business income.
The issue arose where cancellation relied on grounds not stated in the show cause notice. The court ordered merits adjudication after restoring the appeal with costs.
The Tribunal held that demonetization-period cash deposits were supported by agricultural income evidence. The section 68 addition was deleted after accepting bills, vouchers, and landholding details.
The petitioner sought to invalidate the entry tax law again on constitutional grounds. The ruling clarifies that final judgments bar subsequent identical challenges.
The court declined to entertain a fresh writ challenging entry tax where the petitioner had not filed an earlier petition. The ruling clarifies that Supreme Court-granted revival applies only to previously dismissed writs.
The Court ruled that a reference seeking overseas tax information for an ineligible assessment year was impermissible, preventing extension of the limitation period and rendering the assessment time-barred.
The Court refused to interfere with ex-parte GST orders where the taxpayer failed to reply or attend hearings. Blaming a professional advisor was held insufficient to bypass statutory procedure.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
The court examined an assessment passed without considering the taxpayers detailed reply. It held that non-consideration of the reply violates natural justice, warranting remand.
The dispute concerned whether DRT Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction over a recovery application. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction was valid since the bank office maintaining the loan account was located at Hyderabad.
