The Court held that a GST demand for a pre-liquidation period could not be enforced after the corporate debtor was sold as a going concern with NCLT confirmation. It ruled that all past dues stood extinguished and the tax proceeding was invalid.
The Court confirmed that statements recorded during a survey cannot form the basis for tax additions if the assessee is not allowed to challenge them.
Court noted that documented share purchases, demat holdings, and stock-exchange sales were not properly evaluated by the AO. The ITAT’s factual findings were upheld.
The Court held that a provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 83 and ordered release of the account with a requirement to maintain a ₹10 lakh minimum balance.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
The Court set aside the appellate order after finding no inquiry into when the March 2022 order was uploaded, directing the authority to verify the actual upload date. The ruling clarifies that limitation must be assessed based on proven upload timelines.
The High Court held that investigation material showed prima facie involvement in unlawful tender cost increases. The ruling emphasized that such allegations warrant a full trial, not discharge.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Income Tax Department, condoning delay but emphasizing that repeated petitions on settled questions waste judicial resources.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the applicant was absconding and implicated in a fraudulent lottery cybercrime. Bail was denied considering the nature of offences under IPC and IT Act.
