ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
The High Court set aside the Settlement Commission’s order rejecting a settlement application. It held that while non-cooperation was noted, the finding regarding lack of full disclosure lacked adequate reasoning.
The ITAT held that when non-jurisdictional High Courts give conflicting decisions, a division bench ruling should be preferred over a single judge decision. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim that the assessment order was time-barred.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
The Kerala High Court held that freezing a bank account suspected to contain proceeds of crime must follow the attachment procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS. The debit freeze imposed under Section 106 was therefore quashed.
The Court ruled that Section 106 of the BNSS permits seizure of property but not debit freezing of bank accounts. Attachment of proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the freezing of a bank account after finding that cyber authorities had directed the freeze without obtaining a Magistrate’s order under the BNSS procedure.
The Court directed authorities not to take coercive steps based on GST show cause notices regarding leasehold rights assignment. The matter was adjourned while the issue remains under consideration.
The Bombay High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in land and building amounts to transfer of benefits arising from immovable property. Consequently, such transactions are not taxable as supply of services under the GST Act.
