The Tribunal held that the AO’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unsustainable as no specific defects were identified. The ruling confirms that estimation of income cannot be based on assumptions when records are supported by documentation.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of the faceless authority violated Section 151A. With the notice invalid, the reassessment and jewellery addition were quashed.
The Tribunal annulled the reassessment after finding that both the notice and order were issued to a company that had been struck off. It held the proceedings invalid and allowed the appeal.
The ITAT concluded that non-compliance with faceless procedure under Section 151A renders Section 148 notices invalid, nullifying both substantive and protective additions.
Courts held that allegations of large-scale fraudulent ITC require factual adjudication and are unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The Supreme Court refused intervention but extended time to file the appeal.
The Court held that penalty proceedings issued six to nine years late under the repealed VAT law were unreasonable and without jurisdiction. It ruled that powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe and quashed all notices and orders.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed uploading of Form 10B, treating the lapse as procedural and directing allowance of exemption.
The Delhi High Court rejected an application seeking condonation of a nine-month delay in filing a revised ITR, holding that no sufficient cause or genuine hardship was established. The original ITR had been filed on time, and the delay was deemed excessive.
The Delhi High Court allowed a company to file a GST appeal despite delay, citing the serious illness of a key director. The Court emphasized procedural fairness while the validity of related notifications remains pending before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal found that statutory procedures for issuing demand, possession, and sale notices were properly followed by the bank. It observed that the borrowers provided no valuation report or evidence supporting their claim of undervaluation. The auction was therefore sustained as legally valid.
