The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
The Madras High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 of the GST enactments cannot be imposed where a specific late fee provision exists under Section 47. The Court quashed the penalty portion of the GST order relating to delayed annual return filing.
The Allahabad High Court held the GST arrest illegal after finding that written grounds of arrest were not properly annexed to the arrest memo or furnished in compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties imposed for alleged cash transactions after holding that the electronic evidence relied upon by the Revenue was inadmissible in law. The Tribunal observed that mandatory procedures relating to digital evidence handling and chain of custody were not properly followed.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted an addition made under Section 69 after finding that the Assessing Officer relied only on an Excel sheet entry without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that suspicion alone cannot justify an addition.
The case involved additions based on seized diaries, alleged cash sales, and estimated profits. The ITAT partly accepted the assessee’s arguments and directed adoption of a revised industry GP rate for computing taxable income.
The Bombay High Court held that delayed IGST refunds beyond sixty days attract mandatory interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act. The Court ruled that refund claims could not be indefinitely withheld after appellate proceedings attained finality.
The Tribunal observed that delays in completion of housing projects by builders cannot deprive a taxpayer of Section 54 benefits when the investment was made within the prescribed time. Deduction was allowed despite non-delivery of possession.
The Supreme Court held that allegations that GPAs were executed only as loan security failed because the appellant produced no proof of loan repayment, interest payment or discharge of debt. The burden initially remained on the person alleging fraud and sham transactions.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
