ITAT restricted unexplained cash addition from Rs.78 lakhs to Rs.7 lakhs, granting relief on demonetization deposits while maintaining that it is not a precedent-setting decision.
The appellate authority’s reliance on an overwriting-ridden postal report was rejected. The Court found no valid proof of service and restored the appeal for reconsideration. e Court held that the GST order was not proven to be served on the taxpayer, making the appeal within limitation. The ruling sets aside the dismissal and directs fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal ruled that once the assessee responds to a 148A(b) notice, the AO must complete the 148A(d)–148 cycle within the remaining time. In this case, the notice overshot the surviving limitation period, making reassessment legally defective. Consequently, all additions related to alleged accommodation entries and loans were quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if the AO of the searched person fails to record a mandatory satisfaction note, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance.
Tribunal quashed reopening under Section 147 where AO’s presumption of non-filing contradicted the documented return, citing Deepak Wadhwa precedent.
The decision highlights that additions under Section 153C cannot stand when based only on third-party statements without seized material linking the assessee. The ruling stresses the need for concrete evidence before treating purchases as non-genuine.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application in the case of fake firms for passing on ineligible ITC by issuing fake GST bills not granted since twin conditions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] not fulfilled.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] rightly rejected on account of pre-existing dispute between Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
