The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated without material showing income had escaped assessment. The Court held that mere allegations of circuitous transactions were insufficient. The key takeaway is that actual escapement is mandatory under the amended law.
The High Court ruled that clubbing several tax periods into one GST show cause notice is illegal. All proceedings based on such a consolidated notice were quashed, with liberty given to restart proceedings lawfully.
The High Court examined whether a personal hearing could be fixed before the last date for filing a reply to a GST show cause notice. It held that such a procedure violates the statutory scheme and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
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.
