The Tribunal set aside the ex parte confirmation of a cash-deposit addition and directed fresh examination after the assessee produced sale-related documents. The key takeaway is that additions under section 69 require proper verification of evidence.
The ruling directs re-examination of three loan transactions after new evidence was produced for the first time. The loan from one creditor was accepted and the related addition deleted.
Tribunal held that civil, plumbing and electrical charges paid to builder formed part of the acquisition cost and allowed claim. It held that embedded fixtures qualify for deduction, while travel expenses unrelated to transfer do not.
The Court dismissed the petition seeking release of seized gold, noting that the 2018 confiscation order was never challenged. The ruling held that no interference was warranted at this stage.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim ITC under Section 16(6) when the taxpayer voluntarily cancelled registration. The ruling confirms that Section 16(6) applies only where cancellation has been lawfully revoked.
The Tribunal held that amounts paid directly to a confirming party did not accrue to the seller and could not be treated as capital gains. The Section 263 revision was invalidated because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Court set aside a suspension issued for not acting against a bogus GST firm, noting the officer was on sanctioned leave and later transferred. The ruling permits inquiry proceedings to continue but removes the suspension.
Court condoned a 27-day delay in filing an appeal and held that pre-deposit must be computed only on disputed tax. The matter was remanded for fresh calculation and reconsideration.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that both assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte. The case was returned to the AO with directions to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
