The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal due to unexplained delay. This left intact the High Court ruling quashing reassessment based on a rejected share valuation.
The question was whether execution proceedings could extend to directors despite no findings against them. The Court ruled that directors cannot be bound in execution without pleadings, adjudication, and findings in the original proceedings.
The Court ruled that failure to substitute the legal representatives of one heir does not automatically abate proceedings. Abatement arises only where the deceased party’s interest is left wholly unrepresented.
Tribunal held that cash found and seized cannot be treated as unexplained when it is fully reflected in audited books and not disproved by tax authority. Additions under Section 69A cannot rest on suspicion alone.
The Tribunal held that where consideration for a flat is paid through banking channels, stamp duty value as on the date of allotment must be adopted. Addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on registration-year valuation was quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The High Court set aside GST assessment and appellate orders where the date for personal hearing was fixed on the same day as the reply deadline. It held that such procedure violates principles of natural justice.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision restricting disallowance on alleged bogus purchases to 6 percent. It held that the issue was already settled in the assessee’s own earlier year and raised no substantial question of law.
The addition for alleged cash paid towards property purchase was deleted as the transaction itself stood cancelled. The ruling confirms that cancelled transactions weaken unexplained cash allegations.
The Tribunal upheld reopening and reassessment but reduced the estimated commission income from 2% to 1% due to absence of comparative or segmental justification.
