Appellate Tribunal dismissed FEMA proceedings after the ED could not provide authenticated HSBC Geneva bank statements. The ruling emphasizes that unverified evidence cannot support prosecution.
The tribunal ruled that commissions earned through LIC policies linked to a scheduled offence were rightly treated as proceeds of crime, justifying provisional attachment of property.
The ITAT Pune quashed reassessment proceedings, ruling them void ab initio because the requisite approval under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT). This failure to follow the mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for notices issued after three years vitiated the entire reopening.
ITAT Delhi partly allowed assessee’s appeal, reducing unexplained income from ₹10.08 crore to ₹2.22 crore and lowering commission on inter-mediated transactions from 3% to a fair 1%, emphasizing verification of cash and cheque entries under same code.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
The J&K High Court set aside a GST demand of ₹15.44 Lakh, ruling that authorities must consider a taxpayer’s reply to a Show Cause Notice if received before the final assessment order is passed.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a CIT(A) order is not void simply because it names the deceased assessee. The Tribunal restored the case, directing the CIT(A) to admit evidence due to the assessee’s prior illness.
The Allahabad High Court stayed a ₹110 Cr GST demand on Dabur India’s Hajmola Candy, citing a Supreme Court precedent that previously settled the product’s classification issue.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nippon Tubes Limited, ruling that the detention of goods was justified because the movement of materials to a job worker lacked the mandatory GST delivery challan (Rule 55) and e-way bill, despite the existence of a master tax invoice.
