The Tribunal ruled that adjournment based on pending comments from the Assessing Officer requires a definite timeline. It stressed orderly conduct and procedural fairness in handling multiple connected appeals.
Observing that six out of ten heirs supported the nominee and only one objected, the Court restored the membership decision. It held that revisional interference was unwarranted in absence of eligibility dispute.
The Court quashed GST adjudication orders on excess ITC for violating Sections 75(4) and 75(6) due to absence of reasons and denial of hearing, directing fresh proceedings with proper particulars.
The High Court quashed the adjudication order after finding that the authority failed to consider uncontroverted submissions on valid tax invoices and GSTR filings, directing fresh hearing.
The Bombay High Court permitted videography of statements and allowed an advocate to sit at a visible but not audible distance during a Section 70 CGST inquiry. The relief was granted considering the petitioner’s medical condition and willingness to cooperate.
ITAT Mumbai held that even a small stock discrepancy can attract Section 69A if unexplained. Lack of supporting evidence led to confirmation of addition.
The Tribunal remanded the reassessment after the assessee sought another opportunity to explain the source of investment. The addition was set aside subject to payment of costs and fresh adjudication on merits.
The Supreme Court held that appeals involving tax below the prescribed monetary threshold should not be pursued. The question of limitation in reassessment was left open for future cases.
The High Court held that failure to conduct mandatory pre-show cause consultation rendered the tax proceedings unsustainable, and remanded the matter to CESTAT for fresh decision on merits.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
