Allahabad High Court set aside the penalty order (GST MOV-09) against M.D. Traders, ruling that the penalty for a missing e-way bill, when a tax invoice is present, must be determined under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act, not 129(1)(b).
ITAT Chennai held that mere CRS data without corroborative evidence cannot justify taxing balances in foreign trusts as undisclosed assets when the assessee has not contributed funds or derived income.
Bombay High Court ruled that transferring a taxpayer’s case is unnecessary when assessment for relevant year has already been finalized, quashing earlier impugned order.
ITAT Jaipur held that Rs. 8.9 lakh surrendered during a survey and included in books as business income cannot be taxed under section 69C or 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
The High Court held that a later Supreme Court judgment cannot justify invoking Section 254(2) to modify an ITAT order passed according to the prevailing law.
The Bombay High Court held that when sales are accepted, entire bogus purchases cannot be added; only profit difference is taxable in the case of traders.
ITAT Kolkata held that investments in foreign life insurance policies were made from legitimate non-resident income and inherited sources. Addition of Rs. 1.08 crore under Black Money Act was deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that USD 2.41 lakh deposits in Jersey bank accounts were inherited from the assessee’s parents and not undisclosed foreign income, setting aside the CIT(A)’s addition under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST order lacking a Document Identification Number, citing Supreme Court and CBIC circular precedents.
The CIT(A) deleted a ₹ 75.5 lakh addition under Section 68 after finding the AO violated natural justice by denying cross-examination of the third-party who provided the statement. The ITAT accepted the reassessment was correctly initiated under Section 147, but the final ruling on the Revenue’s appeal is incomplete.
