The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
The Court ruled that Section 148 notices issued by the local Assessing Officer, following orders under Section 148A(d), are legally valid. It rejected arguments that such notices must be issued facelessly under the 2022 Scheme. This establishes that notice issuance and faceless assessment are distinct processes.
The Delhi High Court quashed charges against the petitioner in a corruption case, finding intercepted calls insufficient to establish grave suspicion of conspiracy.
The Court held that intercepted calls and investigation records did not establish demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. It affirmed that no material linked the accused to the alleged conspiracy, upholding the quashing of charges.
Delhi High Court ruled that a pre-deposit made under the Central Excise head satisfies the statutory requirement when the Service Tax portal is non-functional, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
The High Court rejected the writ petition challenging GST demand for alleged fraudulent ITC, citing the complexity of factual issues. Petitioners are allowed to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court ruled that the High Court erred in terminating the case at the pre-trial stage. It held that allegations of disproportionate assets require examination at trial and restored the prosecution.
The Court upheld the refusal to discharge the accused, citing material suggesting grave suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy. It held that the allegations warranted full trial scrutiny.
The Court held that prosecution cannot continue when no recovery is made and the only material is statements of co-accused. It ruled that such statements alone cannot justify a trial under Sections 489B and 489C.
The Supreme Court canceled anticipatory bail granted to accused who concealed the setting aside of an ex parte injunction while attempting to dispossess lawful property. The ruling emphasizes careful judicial scrutiny in serious offences.
