The Tribunal examined alleged bogus payments to 27 sub-contractors treated as undisclosed income. While the Assessing Officer made large additions, the assessee provided affidavits confirming genuineness. The ruling partly allowed the appeals, stressing careful verification of evidence rather than assumptions.
Delhi High Court held that demand notice issued by Competition Commission of India being served during subsistence of the stay is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment proceedings on the basis of change of mind/opinion and also on non-application of mind is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, impugned notices and order quashed.
ITAT Chennai struck down a protective addition of ₹14.91 Cr made u/s 69, citing invalid u/s 153C jurisdiction. No substantive assessment existed in the companies’ hands for AY 2014-15, reinforcing that protective additions require year-wise satisfaction and corroborative evidence.
Delhi High Court held that VAT (Audit) officer, not being jurisdictional officer, are not competent to complete assessment. Accordingly, assessment orders are quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal confirmed that powers to question “source of source” under section 68 exist only from 01-04-2023. Additions on unsecured loans and student deposits were deleted, while TDS disallowance was remanded.
Kerala High Court held that compounding under KVAT Act for that year cannot be cancelled in case suppression of turnover is detected with respect to dealer who have paid tax at compounding rate. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioner.
ITAT Chennai ruled that for captive power consumption, the market value for Section 80-IA deduction should be the rate at which electricity is supplied to industrial consumers, not the SEB purchase rate. AO’s downward adjustment was deleted.
ITAT Delhi ruled that additions under section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material specific to the assessee. All unbooked commission additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 were deleted.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST penalty under section 129(3) cannot be imposed for non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill caused by a technical glitch without intent to evade tax.
