The issue involved unexplained cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal held that once books of account are accepted, deposits recorded therein cannot be treated as unexplained.
The issue involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained credit. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by recorded sales and identifiable debtors, Section 68 cannot be invoked.
The issue involved addition under Section 69A for demonetization cash deposits. The Tribunal held that once sale consideration was accepted as source, the addition could not be sustained.
The Court addressed whether cancellation for non-filing of returns can be reversed after compliance. It held that authorities may restore registration if returns are filed and dues cleared as per Rule 22(4).
Insolvency plea was quashed as insolvency applications filed during the subsistence of an interim moratorium were void ab initio even if the original proceedings were later withdrawn.
Writ Maintainable in Contract Dispute Where State Action Found Arbitrary; GST Rate Revision During Contract Execution Must Be Compensated: Court; Denial of GST Differential Refund Held Discriminatory Against Contractor;
Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) The writ petition challenged a show cause notice dated June 18, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a subsequent adjudication order dated November 04, 2025. The dispute arose from allegations that […]
The Tribunal found that capital gains were computed without considering the DVO valuation report. It held that ignoring such evidence is improper and directed reassessment based on correct valuation.
ITAT held that vacant unsold flats attract tax on notional rent under house property. The key takeaway is that ownership triggers taxation even without actual rental income.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
