The Delhi High Court held that notices sent to a GST registrant’s registered email constitute valid service, rejecting claims that personal hearing notices were not received. Proper email communication fulfills natural justice requirements.
The Tribunal ruled that only the part of a property actually rented can be assessed for ALV, excluding self-occupied areas under Section 23(2).
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
Tribunal clarified that a DVO report, being an estimation, cannot form sole basis for additions under Section 69B. Without proof of actual extra expenditure by assessee, such additions are legally unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that penalties were invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge—concealment, inaccurate particulars, under-reporting, or misreporting. The Tribunal reaffirmed that vague notices under Sections 271(1)(c) or 270A are legally unsustainable.
The Court ruled that blocking ITC beyond available credit under Rule 86A is invalid, directing authorities to remove negative blocking from the taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger.
Gujarat High Court quashed CBDT’s rejection and condoned delay in Sysco Industries’ income tax return filing, holding that insolvency and fire caused genuine hardship.
Allahabad High Court applied the doctrine of comity to quash a GST appellate order, directing a fresh decision in line with the un-appealed Bombay High Court judgment on the definition of service ‘recipient’ under the IGST Act.
Delhi High Court restored conviction of Great Indian Nautanki Co. Pvt. Ltd. for delayed TDS deposit but replaced ₹25 lakh fine with admonition, calling it a technical offence.
Tribunal held that incremental cash deposits in bank accounts cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 without concrete evidence. Addition of Rs. 40.32 lakh was deleted.
