The Kolkata ITAT allowed Winner Tradecom Pvt. Limited’s appeal, deleting a ₹15 lakh addition made under Section 68 for an alleged credit from a shell company.
Delhi High Court sets aside an ex-parte GST order against Ruchika Industries, accepting that the proprietor’s serious illness and the notice being uploaded to an obscure portal tab denied a fair hearing.
This ruling addresses a massive tax demand raised by CPC under Section 143(1) based solely on a clerical error in the original Form 3CD. The ITAT set aside the orders, holding that natural justice mandates the assessee be heard and the correct audit report considered before imposing such a significant liability.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that a tax addition based on a vague name in uncorroborated loose papers is invalid without direct evidence linking it to the assessee. The decision emphasizes that suspicion from such dumb documents cannot replace concrete proof in tax assessments.
Allahabad High Court rules GST penalty invalid where e-way bill was delayed due to technical reasons and no intent to evade tax was found.
The ITAT ruled that loose, uncorroborated diaries maintained by a third party are dumb documents and cannot be the sole basis for major tax additions or the denial of Section 11 exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof, and denying Section 11 requires concrete evidence of a violation under Section 13.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
