The ITAT held that cash deposited by a money transfer agent during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained income when the funds belonged to principal payment service providers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee merely acted as a collection agent and transferred the amounts to the principals.
The Bangalore Bench held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return is directory and not mandatory in circumstances where the audit report becomes available during appeal proceedings. Relief under Sections 11 and 12A was restored.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that preferential location charges for flats form part of construction services and cannot be taxed separately. The Court quashed earlier advance ruling orders after relying on the GST Council recommendation and government clarification.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer wrongly stated that the original return was never scrutinized. The Tribunal ruled that such factual errors while recording reasons showed complete non-application of mind.
The Supreme Court held that disclosure of hash value and expert certification under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has a rational nexus with ensuring authenticity and integrity of electronic records.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond the prescribed period were invalid where alleged escaped income arose from unaccounted sales and not from assets. The Tribunal ruled that conditions under Sections 149 and 153A were not satisfied, leading to quashing of multiple reassessment notices.
The Supreme Court ruled that a decree passed without deciding maintainability and jurisdiction issues cannot be executed. It held that absence of judicial reasoning rendered the decree void and unenforceable.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings violated principles of natural justice since the assessee was not provided an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order under Section 148A(d).
ITAT held that loose sheets showing cash and cheque transactions could not justify additions under Section 153A where related cheque transactions were accepted as genuine and linked to group business dealings.
Telangana High Court declined to examine the GST rate dispute in writ jurisdiction, holding that the matter required factual scrutiny of agreements and notifications. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107.
