Allahabad HC quashed GST cancellation order and appellate rejection, directing department to issue a fresh show cause notice and grant a personal hearing.
Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of a Section 271D penalty, ruling that the assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating proceedings. No substantial question of law was found, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that deposits in the assessee’s bank account represented genuine receivables from a previously acknowledged liquor business. Since the source was documented and undisputed, the Sec.69A addition of Rs.12.21 lakhs was deleted.
The Tribunal held that severance pay received on cessation of employment is taxable as “profits in lieu of salary” under Sec.17(3)(iii). Voluntariness or nomenclature of the payment is irrelevant post-2002 statutory amendment.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a large cash-credit addition after the AO confirmed in remand that branch sales and cash transfers were genuine. The key takeaway is that once sales are accepted, related cash deposits cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal confirmed that unsecured loans of ₹1.77 crore were genuine, supported by account-payee cheques, NBFC registration, bank statements, and confirmations. AO’s additions were based on presumption and ignored documentary evidence, so the deletions were rightly upheld.
The Tribunal held that once the Final Assessment Order under Section 147/144C(3) is passed, the DRP has no jurisdiction to consider belated objections. Consequently, appeals against DRP directions in such cases are not maintainable.
Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Unexplained Cash Credits & Bogus Share Dealings — Kolkata ITAT Upholds 68 Additions in Mayurpankh Vincom Pvt Ltd Vs ITO; ITAT Upholds Section 68 Additions After Assessee Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness; Additions Upheld as Assessee Fails to Establish Genuineness of Share Transactions; ITAT Confirms Section […]
The Department could not produce a single document seized from the assessee, relying only on third-party statements, which are not incriminating material. The JCIT’s same-day clearance of multiple assessments without analysis led to the assessments being quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be based on vague or unverified information; specific transactions must be identified to justify additions.
