AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order because it was passed against an Assessee who had already expired, which rendered the order null and void. The Tribunal condoned the 193-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.
The ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 56(2)(viib) addition, ruling that the CIT(A) acted improperly by selectively accepting valuation evidence for one issue (Sec. 68) but rejecting it for the share premium issue. The matter was remanded for a fresh review of the valuation evidence, establishing that all relevant material must be considered fairly.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a partner of Universal Enterprises accused of GST evasion. The court noted substantial investigation was over and imposed conditions for release.
The High Court set aside an order against Sai Computers, ruling that the final GST demand of Rs. 155,878.26 was invalid as it grossly exceeded the Rs. 20,916.90 specified in the initial show-cause notice, violating Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The Court remanded the matter back to the authority for a fresh, lawful determination.
The Pune ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that the alleged unexplained investment transaction occurred in the earlier financial year. The ruling emphasizes the Assessing Officer’s duty to verify the correct assessment year before invoking Section 69, as liability must attach to the right period.
ITAT Rajkot deletes a ₹70,000 penalty under Section 271(1)(b) because the notices and order were issued to a deceased individual. The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated against a dead person are void ab initio, emphasizing that legal heirs must be brought on record first.
Division Bench held that notices must be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), following Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and declared notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid.
Kerala High Court clarified that proceedings under Section 73 apply only where tax is unpaid, short-paid, or wrongly availed. Since the taxpayer only adjusted ITC under the wrong head without causing loss to the exchequer, the GST demand was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
