The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of unreliable books but ruled that the AO could not estimate net profit at 12% without justification, vacating ₹65.08 lakh addition.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
Tribunal upheld 153C jurisdiction based on seized documents and statements, but rejected the AO’s full bogus-purchase addition, sustaining only a 10% profit estimation after book rejection under section 145(3).
The Court set aside the penalty imposed for expired e-way bill, holding that proceedings under Section 129 require proof of intent to evade tax, which was absent.
Karnataka High Court allowed a 36-day delay in filing income tax returns, citing system failure and unavoidable circumstances as sufficient cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b).
Discharge was denied where a complaint and verification report indicated an alleged ₹1,000 bribe demand. The High Court confirmed that prima facie material suffices for framing charges. The case was allowed to proceed to trial despite procedural objections.
The Court held that the assessee failed to prove ₹20.06 crore in purchases and restored the AO’s 100% addition. It ruled that partial estimation was unjustified and Section 69C required full disallowance.
The Court held that refund appeals pending for years must be decided within the statutory one-year period under the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to issue orders by January 2026.
