The Tribunal held that the 2022 amendment cannot shorten the utilization period for past accumulations. Only the unspent Rs.90,000 was taxable, not the entire Rs.6,75,000.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that amount paid to clear mortgage/encumbrances on title of property is rightly claimed as deduction under section 48(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue is dismissed.
The High Court held that a six-month delay in filing a statutory revision under the Customs Act cannot be condoned. The Court found no justification for the delay and refused to exercise writ jurisdiction.
he Court held that the challenged letter was only a preliminary query, not a show cause notice. The petitioner must reply, after which authorities may close the matter or issue a formal notice with proper legal provisions.
The Court set aside the ex-parte GST order after finding the taxpayer had no proper chance to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication while the validity of related notifications remains pending before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal restricted on-money profits to 15%, deleted Transfer Pricing additions, and confirmed bogus purchase disallowances. Jurisdictional objections based on CBDT pecuniary instructions were rejected. The case provides guidance on treatment of search-assessment adjustments and substantiation requirements.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment on the basis of information made available on Insight Portal without verification of information by jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid in law. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
The Court held that seizure under section 129(3) was unsustainable where the goods were found to belong to the consignor. It ruled that no proceedings could continue against the transporter in the absence of adverse findings.
Delhi High Court held that writ petition in cases involving large scale availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC] or evasion of payment of GST not entertained and court has relegated parties to appellate remedy.
ITAT held that additions based on an unsigned, unverified Excel sheet from a third party lacked evidentiary value. The reassessment was quashed as the assessee provided independent evidence disproving alleged on-money payments.
