Gujarat High Court upheld confiscation proceedings under Section 130 after noting that goods were transported without an e-way bill and penalty had been voluntarily paid without protest.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
High Court ruled that a GST order could not survive where SCN did not specify date, time, or venue for personal hearing. Judgment reaffirmed mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of CGST Act.
Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit of ₹25 lakh under CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 applies to leave encashment claims under Section 10(10AA)(ii). Full exemption of ₹10.15 lakh was allowed to the retired SBI employee.
The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence. It ruled that no addition can survive merely on third-party material lacking proof of actual cash movement.
The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and MCA records of lenders were furnished. The ruling reinforces that documentary evidence can successfully rebut allegations of bogus loans.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in quoting TAN cannot result in denial of TDS credit when Form 16 and Form 26AS clearly establish tax deduction. The decision emphasizes substance over procedural technicalities.
The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific finding establishing contravention of Section 269SS is mandatory before imposing penalty.
