The Madras High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh adjudication after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount. The Court also directed reconsideration of the reply and supporting documents on merits.
ITAT Bangalore held that sale of 25 plots did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade because the properties were held for six years as investments. The Tribunal ruled that mere multiplicity of plots sold cannot by itself convert capital gains into business income.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act cannot be initiated without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. The confiscation notice and order were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The petitioner argued that the GST notice was issued by an officer lacking lawful authority, but the Rajasthan High Court held that such issues should first be agitated through the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court ruled that disputes regarding stock calculation methods and seizure proceedings under Sections 122 and 130 of the GST Act could not be decided in writ jurisdiction due to disputed facts.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership alone cannot restrict Section 54 deduction where the entire source of investment for the new residential property originated from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that under-reported income must be calculated as the difference between assessed income and income processed under Section 143(1)(a). Penalty computation was sent back for recomputation due to incorrect methodology adopted by the AO.
The Tribunal deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after substantially deleting the unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68. It held that penalty cannot survive when the quantum addition is largely removed and the remaining amount is estimated.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
ITAT Delhi held that additions based on documents seized from a third party cannot be made under Section 143(3) without invoking reassessment proceedings under Section 148. The Tribunal quashed the assessment for non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards.
