The Tribunal ruled that penalty for non-response to notices cannot survive when the assessee later participates in the assessment proceedings. Since the final assessment was not completed ex-parte, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
ITAT Pune held that creation of artificial intangible asset i.e. goodwill in intra-group merger is merely a colourable transaction out between the Holding Company and the subsidiary company. Accordingly, depreciation claimed thereon deserves to be disallowed.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after observing that the adjudicating authority did not examine the taxpayer’s detailed reply and issued only generic conclusions. The ruling emphasized that adjudicating authorities must discuss submissions and provide clear reasons before confirming tax and penalty demands.
The Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting that the taxpayer’s failure to file returns for six months was due to mental stress and physical illness.
The High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed when late fee is already levied under GST law. The court therefore removed the penalty while confirming the late fee liability.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that a claim for refund of money deposited under a commercial plot allotment scheme arises from contractual obligations. Such disputes must be pursued before a civil court and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court held that GST circulars issued in 2022 cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims when the taxpayer’s right to claim refund had already accrued and the application was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54.
