The Department maintained that search powers could be exercised where there was reason to believe that relevant documents and undisclosed assets were being kept at the premises. The matter involved both personal and third-party records.
The Bombay High Court held that an assessee cannot avoid tax merely because the same amount was taxed in another entity’s hands when the income actually belonged to the assessee. The Court upheld the addition of ₹1.71 crore arising from under-invoiced export transactions.
The Court held that a typographical error in the tax period mentioned in the DRC-01 notice did not invalidate the proceedings because the relevant invoices were clearly identified. However, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply.
The Gauhati High Court granted bail in an NDPS case, holding that the petitioner’s GSTIN appearing in e-way bills was the primary material against him. The Court found no evidence of dealings with consignors, co-accused, or any other material linking him to the alleged trafficking operation.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed a day after an interim stay, accepting the State’s statement that the officer was unaware of the court’s order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with all legal issues kept open.
The Bombay High Court held that compensation awarded under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act cannot be subjected to TDS because Section 96 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act exempts such awards from income tax. The Court quashed orders directing 10% TDS deduction.
Where ITAT directed inclusion of Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable solely on the basis that it satisfied the export turnover filter without examining its functional comparability with assessee, and further directed inclusion of CG Vak Software & Exports Ltd.
The High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration following the Supreme Court’s directions on the retrospective insertion of Section 147A. The assessee was granted liberty to challenge the amended provision.
The Telangana High Court refused to quash a GST show cause notice, holding that the question whether annuity payments were exempt or taxable required detailed factual examination. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be conclusively decided in writ proceedings.
The Delhi High Court held that personal-use disallowance principles applicable to individuals cannot automatically apply to companies. The Tribunal’s order sustaining disallowance of one-sixth of car and telephone expenses was set aside.
