ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail after observing that the accused’s role was mainly related to compliance activities and he did not appear to be a major participant in the alleged GST fraud.
The Tribunal ruled that unverified KOT data and handwritten loose sheets are insufficient to establish unaccounted sales. Additions based on assumptions and unsupported survey statements were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that a sale made after creation of an equitable mortgage cannot defeat the bank’s security interest, leading to dismissal of the borrower’s challenge.
The Kerala High Court held that employees originally from the DoT and later absorbed into the PSU must be treated as retiring from Central Government service. As a result, tax deduction on leave encashment based on an executive instruction was set aside.
The Karnataka AAR held that the exemption for housing society contributions must be calculated on a monthly basis per member. The ruling clarified that the threshold cannot be aggregated annually even if billing is done quarterly or annually.
The Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot cover multiple financial years. Such consolidation violates the statutory limitation structure and prejudices the assessee’s rights.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that authorities cannot block input tax credit beyond the balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Rule 86A allows restriction only on credit actually available at the time of invocation.
The Tribunal refused to condone an 840-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee claimed the Chartered Accountant failed to inform about the assessment order. It held that a taxpayer must remain vigilant about proceedings and cannot shift full responsibility to the counsel.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when they fall within accepted business turnover declared under the presumptive taxation scheme. Once turnover is accepted under Section 44AD, separate additions for such deposits are generally not justified.
