The High Court upheld deletion of ₹7.26 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that PAN, bank statements and audited financials established identity and creditworthiness. Suspicion without evidence was held insufficient.
The Court held that allegations of forged extension and duress require factual examination by the Adjudicating Authority, maintaining status quo on seized gold and cash.
The High Court denied bail, holding that serious allegations of loan diversion through shell entities were supported by bank records and witness statements. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The High Court granted a post-decisional hearing after finding that a proper Chartered Accountant’s certificate with UDIN was not filed before the appellate authority. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to submit relevant documents.
Calcutta High Court held that Bending and Bundling services cannot be claimed under the heading Clearing and Forwarding Services. Accordingly, demand of service tax under tax bracket of Clearing and Forwarding services to that extent quashed.
The High Court quashed recovery proceedings for ITC reversal, holding that mere non-deposit of tax by the supplier is insufficient without proof of collusion, fake invoices, or lack of bona fides.
The High Court ruled that GST adjudication orders must contain detailed facts and reasons. Summary notices and orders lacking particulars were set aside as legally unsustainable.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order quashing a provisional attachment, holding that the matter had become academic after confirmation under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. The Court emphasized that parties must pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The High Court held that arrest was not necessary in a dispute over a GST overdraft arrangement. Bail was granted with conditions, noting custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
