The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld deletion of ₹15.94 crore addition after finding no adverse material supporting allegations of suppressed production and unaccounted sales. The Court reaffirmed that assessments cannot be based on mere assumptions or estimated yield comparisons.
The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export only amounted to product configuration and not “use” under the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal therefore quashed confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the exporter.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue share. Court noted that such income could not be taxed again in member’s hands.
Kerala High Court held that interception of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction of its declared destination constituted a strong prima facie circumstance supporting GST detention proceedings. The writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed.
