The Karnataka High Court set aside an appellate order rejecting a GST appeal after finding that no reasons had been recorded for refusing condonation of delay. The Court held that the order reflected non-application of mind and restored the appeal.
The Kolkata ITAT deleted an addition against an employees gratuity fund after finding that gratuity payments were higher than the interest income earned during the year. The Tribunal held that excess expenditure over income meant no taxable addition could survive.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order as it was passed after the mandatory five-year limitation period. The court held that orders issued beyond Section 74(10) are without jurisdiction and cannot survive.
The ITAT Agra held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee had already disclosed commission income in the income tax return. The Tribunal granted relief after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the declared income source.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that a reassessment notice issued after expiry of six years for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1). The Tribunal ruled that the amended ten-year reopening period could not revive time-barred cases.
The Delhi High Court held that tax authorities should ordinarily grant complete stay of disputed demand when the issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that once transactions are treated as bogus, there is no basis for separately allowing expenses reflected in gross profit. Telescoping was therefore restricted to net income disclosed in the return.
The Delhi High Court ruled that deposits arising from cash sales did not render genuine import purchases unexplained. The Court emphasized that the transactions were supported by customs and banking documents.
The Gujarat High Court set aside a Section 148 notice after finding no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the seized third-party documents. The Court held that reassessment based on vague material and assumptions was unsustainable.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding that rejection of books and addition for suppressed production were invalid where the Assessing Officer relied only on estimated yield comparisons. The ruling reiterates that tax assessments require tangible supporting material.
