The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose paper lacking any connection with the taxpayer. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction, the reopening notice and reassessment order were set aside.
The Court upheld deletion of the LTCG addition after finding that the Revenue relied on assumptions rather than evidence. Documentary records established the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Court upheld deletion of a ₹1 crore addition under Section 68 after noting that the assessee had furnished lender details, source of funds, and repayment evidence. It held that the dispute was purely factual and raised no question of law.
The Court held that the issue was covered by its earlier ruling on Section 55A. It upheld the deletion of long-term capital gains addition and rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the DVO reference.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of an addition relating to alleged bogus capital gains. The Court found that shares held for over a decade as genuine investments could not be treated as penny stock transactions.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a loss disallowance after finding that contract notes, banking records, and trading documents supported the genuineness of the share transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A GST appeal filed within the extended condonable period cannot be dismissed as time-barred without proper consideration.
The Court held that the Assessing Officer could not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 55A where the assessees registered valuer had reported a higher value. The reassessment based on such reference was therefore held impermissible.
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 Gujarat High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. Consequently, the GST demand under Section 74 was set aside.
