The Karnataka High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the assessee was given only three hours’ notice for a video conference despite seeking a later hearing. The matter was remanded with directions to provide a proper opportunity to reply and participate in a fresh hearing.
The High Court held that a GST penalty order passed without issuing a prior show cause notice violates Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The penalty was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must clearly indicate whether the alleged default is under-reporting or misreporting, as both attract different consequences under Section 270A. Failure to do so rendered the penalty order invalid.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that an uncorroborated loose sheet could not justify an addition under Section 69 for alleged on-money payment. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition as no independent evidence supported the Revenue’s case.
The Calcutta High Court held that a sanction order must reflect consideration of the taxpayer’s explanation and provide reasons for rejecting it. As these requirements were absent, the sanction order was quashed and remanded for reconsideration.
The ITAT held that proceeds from the sale of ancestral immovable property are taxable under the head Capital Gains” and not Income from Other Sources. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation after considering the assessee’s documents.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained merely because they were made in old denomination notes during demonetisation. The Tribunal remanded the matter to verify whether the deposits represented genuine business sales.
The ITAT Pune held that compensation received under an Early Retirement Scheme could not be taxed as profits in lieu of salary under Section 17(3)(i). Following earlier judicial precedents, it directed deletion of the addition.
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court upheld an interim injunction after finding that the housing society failed to provide a proper break-up or justification for substantial maintenance arrears. It held that the Trial Court’s order required no interference.
The Tribunal relied on earlier findings that the lending entities were paper concerns engaged in providing accommodation entries. The unsecured loans were treated as unexplained cash credits.
