The Court held that a typographical error in the tax period mentioned in the DRC-01 notice did not invalidate the proceedings because the relevant invoices were clearly identified. However, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply.
The Gauhati High Court granted bail in an NDPS case, holding that the petitioner’s GSTIN appearing in e-way bills was the primary material against him. The Court found no evidence of dealings with consignors, co-accused, or any other material linking him to the alleged trafficking operation.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail while the challenge to the arrest was still pending adjudication. The Court clarified that the order did not express any view on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court granted bail in a disproportionate assets case after noting that the accused had remained in custody for more than one and a half years and that the charge sheet had already been filed. The trial court was requested to expedite the trial.
Pune ITAT ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with cooperative banks is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The decision reinforces the broad scope of the provision.
The ITAT Mumbai held that purchases cannot be treated as entirely bogus merely based on Sales Tax Department information when the assessee produced invoices, bank statements, stock records, and delivery challans. The Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the alleged non-genuine purchases, if any, should be taxed.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed a day after an interim stay, accepting the State’s statement that the officer was unaware of the court’s order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with all legal issues kept open.
The Delhi ITAT held that liabilities already written back and offered to tax in later years cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). The Tribunal ruled that such an addition would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings cannot survive when reasons recorded for reopening demonstrate non-application of mind. Following the Delhi High Court’s findings in the preceding year, the reassessment was declared invalid.
The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance after finding non-compliance with Section 14A(2).
