The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition made on alleged unexplained investment in property. It held that difference between initial agreement value and final sale deed, without evidence of extra payment, cannot justify addition under Section 69.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition in a case alleging fraudulent ITC through bogus firms, holding that complex factual disputes must be examined in statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court granted interim relief after noting absence of proof that mandatory approval under Section 151 was served on the assessee. It held that the petitioner had made out an arguable case warranting stay of the Section 148 notice.
The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant FTC, observing that denial on technical grounds would amount to unjust enrichment.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a differential IGST demand, holding that CBIC’s beneficial circular clarifying 12% GST on poultry machinery parts applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled that payment at the lower rate stands regularised for the past period.
The Court held that cooperation with investigation does not require an accused to incriminate himself. Finding no need for custodial interrogation, it granted anticipatory bail subject to continued cooperation.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration, noting it was based solely on non-filing of returns for six months. The Court granted the taxpayer four weeks to file returns and clear dues for restoration.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking clause (i) instead of clauses (iii)/(iv) of Explanation 2 was legally incorrect where material belonged to another person. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as approval was taken from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT under Section 151(ii). Jurisdictional non-compliance rendered the notice void.
