The ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings initiated under an incorrect and obsolete PAN suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal ruled that failure to consider the assessee’s reply under Section 148A invalidated the reassessment proceedings.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration is justified where material indicates that ITC claims are supported by fabricated documents and fake invoices. The appeal against cancellation was dismissed.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that “Pooja Panneer” could not claim GST exemption as puja samagri because the exemption notification specifically listed eligible items. The Authority ruled that the word “namely” made the list exhaustive and not illustrative.
The Tamil Nadu AAR observed that devotees’ tonsuring is a religious activity exempt from GST, but the subsequent licensing of hair collection is a separate commercial transaction liable to GST.
ITAT Delhi noted that confirmations from the company and broker regarding share transactions were available but not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded for denovo assessment.
Chennai ITAT condoned a massive delay in filing appeals after accepting the assessee’s explanation that he became aware of favourable BSNL VRS rulings through employees’ WhatsApp groups. The Tribunal also held that BSNL VRS-2019 compensation is fully exempt under Section 10(10B).
The ITAT Surat held that agricultural land qualifies as “immovable property” under Section 56(2)(x) since the provision covers “any land or building or both.” The Tribunal ruled that purchases below stamp duty valuation may attract tax on the differential amount.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 69A cannot be invoked where loan transactions are fully routed through banking channels and recorded in regular books of account. The Tribunal deleted the addition despite Revenue alleging the transactions were accommodation entries based on third-party search material.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Indian currency cannot be confiscated under Section 121 of Customs Act without clear evidence connecting it to smuggled goods. Tribunal ruled that investigative statements alone are insufficient to justify seizure of cash as sale proceeds of smuggled gold.
High Court held that use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 129(3) does not by itself create mandatory consequences. Court emphasized that legislative intent, object, and consequences of non-compliance must be examined.
