The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceedings for unauthorized construction. The Tribunal accepted the actual purchase price as fair market value and deleted the addition.
The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It held that presumptions and unverified notings cannot replace concrete evidence.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused linked to alleged fake GST billing and forged documents. The Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner had already spent about six months in custody.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Court held that amended gratuity rules effective from July 2013 governed all employees uniformly and prevailed over inconsistent provisions in the HR manual. The appeal seeking enhanced gratuity was dismissed.
Delhi ITAT held that notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 without digital signatures are invalid in e-proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment as void ab initio.
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.
