The Gujarat High Court held that after considering the ledger entries correctly, the alleged escaped income was only ₹45 lakh, below the threshold under Section 149(1)(b). As the reopening was beyond the prescribed limitation, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey proceedings under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132. Court ruled that Section 96(a)(i) cannot be applied beyond its express wording.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on tippers could not be denied merely because they were received before their inclusion as capital goods. Since the vehicles were registered and put to use after 22.06.2010, the credit was held admissible.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision quashing prosecution under Sections 276B and 278B. The High Court had held that continuation of prosecution after deposit of TDS and interest was unwarranted in the facts of the case.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision allowing Section 11 exemption after applying CBDT Circular No. 16 of 2022 permitting condonation of delayed Form 10B. It held that the Revenue failed to show why the circular was inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that CPC could not process the return under Section 143(1) after the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 143(2). It ruled that parallel proceedings under Sections 143(1) and 143(3) were not permissible.
The Bombay High Court held that the 2019 amendment to Section 54(1) of the GST Act applies prospectively and does not govern refund claims relating to periods before 1 February 2019. The refund applications were directed to be processed.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 270A could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to clearly distinguish between under-reporting and misreporting of income. The penalty was deleted for lack of a specific finding.
The Delhi High Court held that immunity under Section 270AA could not be denied when the penalty notice did not specify whether the proceedings were for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The impugned order was set aside.
Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and uncorroborated loose sheet lacking essential transaction details could not form the sole basis for an addition. It held that documentary evidence and purchasers’ statements rebutted the presumption arising from the seized document.
