The assessee’s plea that delayed PF/ESI deduction was a debatable issue was rejected because Checkmate had settled the law retrospectively. The key takeaway is that once the Supreme Court clarifies the law, CPC may apply it through 143(1)(a) adjustments based on audit disclosures.
The Court restored a time-barred appeal after noting BSNL’s voluntary payment of differential duty. The ruling permits the case to be heard on merits despite a 652-day delay.
Covers the Tribunal’s ruling upholding most TPO-selected comparables while excluding product-owning entities, clarifying how functional similarity drives benchmarking in software distribution.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that allegations of fraudulent ITC require factual scrutiny through the appellate process. The petitioner was directed to pursue an appeal under Section 107.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCNs and orders are legally valid when authenticated using digital keys, even without visible signatures, and that statutory appeal under Section 107 is appropriate remedy.
ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) wrongly treated the DVO’s report as binding and failed to independently scrutinize comparables, methodology, and objections. Key takeaway: the first appellate authority must evaluate the DVO’s report on merits and issue a speaking order.
Delhi High Court holds that the right to cross-examine witnesses in GST proceedings is not unfettered, and blanket requests without justification can be denied.
The Court remanded the case after finding that the SCN was uploaded only in the Additional Notices tab, preventing the petitioner from replying. Fresh adjudication was ordered, and the notification-validity issue was left open.
The Court stayed a Tribunal order allowing redemption of confiscated gold while examining whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Customs Act. The ruling highlights the need to address key legal questions before relief is granted.
