The High Court held that goods transported without an e-way bill and supported by an invalid invoice from a suspended supplier cannot be released. The absence of valid documents justified detention and penalty.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of addition as seized loose sheets lacked key details and no supporting evidence proved unaccounted sales. Reliance solely on such documents was held insufficient.
The tribunal held reopening invalid where actual escaped income was below ₹50 lakh. It clarified that jurisdiction depends on real income, not transaction value.
Link Up Textiles Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against Advance Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The […]
The Tribunal ruled that revision under Section 263 requires examination of approval granted under Section 153D. Without establishing any defect in such approval, the assessment cannot be termed erroneous. The decision limits arbitrary revision powers.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on third-party Excel sheets and statements. It ruled that absence of independent evidence and denial of cross-examination renders such additions invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that incorrect invocation of Section 69A does not invalidate the addition. Since the loan was found to be an accommodation entry, it was sustained under Section 68. The decision emphasizes substance over technical defects.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. Addition was deleted as AO relied only on suspicion without evidence.
The Tribunal clarified that possession is not a mandatory condition for claiming Section 54 exemption. It held that investment within the prescribed timeline satisfies the legal requirement.
The Supreme Court held that employer-provided group insurance benefits cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation as they arise from an independent contractual relationship. It ruled that such benefits do not have a direct nexus with the accident and cannot reduce statutory compensation.
