The Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that the seized loose paper referred to non-agricultural land rates recorded after the petitioner had already sold agricultural land. The Court held that reopening based on hypothetical assumptions and unrelated material was unsustainable.
The Court ruled that Explanation 1 to Section 153A requires inclusion of the search assessment year while calculating the extended ten-year reassessment period.
The Gujarat High Court held that a taxpayers selection of No for personal hearing in Form DRC-06 cannot override the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court quashed the order passed without granting personal hearing.
The Gujarat High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner prefers another valuation method. The Court ruled that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiry and adopted a plausible view based on the DVO report.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of 100%. The Court held that only the income component embedded in disputed transactions could be taxed.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not continue where Revenue failed to establish any independent material connecting assessee to alleged cash transactions. Section 148 notice based solely on a broker’s seized register was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court held that only the income component embedded in alleged bogus purchases could be taxed instead of the entire purchase amount. The Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance to 6% of disputed purchases linked to accommodation entries.
The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The court held that only the income component of alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire transaction. It upheld the Tribunal’s restriction of addition to 6%. The ruling reinforces limits on full disallowance.
The High Court ruled that reopening based on unrelated and non-specific seized material is not permissible. It concluded that no prima facie belief of income escapement could be formed. The decision highlights limits on the use of indirect evidence.
