SC set aside a HC conviction in a corruption trap case, reinstating acquittal of a Labour Officer. SC ruled that recovery of cash alone is insufficient for conviction under PC Act unless prosecution first proves accused demanded and accepted bribe.
ITAT Mumbai quashed search assessments under Section 153C, ruling that a single, non-speaking, and mechanical approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessment years is invalid.
SC ruled that holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) are investors, not creditors, affirming debt-equity distinction. Since CRPS is equity and redemption is conditional on profits, no ‘financial debt’ or ‘default’ under IBC exists, barring them from invoking Section 7.
Gujarat High Court rules refund for double IGST payment cannot be denied on Customs Act limitation grounds, as revenue cannot retain tax paid without authority of law.
Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a GST demand of Rs 5 Cr, ruling the amount violated Section 75(7) of the GST Act by exceeding the SCN’s stated liability.
The Supreme Court set aside High Court and ITAT orders, condoning a 166-day delay in an appeal (Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO). The court mandated a justice oriented and liberal approach to delay condonation.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
The Tribunal held that detailed inquiries by the AO made Section 263 inapplicable and upheld the assessee’s claims for capital loss and bad debts on merits.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
