The Court held that issuing a single assessment covering several financial years is without jurisdiction. The order was quashed, reaffirming that GST proceedings must be initiated separately for each financial year.
The court examined whether a single notice could cover several financial years under GST law. It held that consolidation of multiple tax periods under Section 74 is impermissible.
The court examined allegations of large-scale fraudulent availment and circulation of ITC without actual supply. Anticipatory bail was refused, holding that serious allegations and an ongoing investigation justified custodial inquiry.
The issue was whether default was limited to a single instalment below the threshold. The tribunal held that continued defaults across multiple instalments and recall of the loan justified admission of the insolvency application.
Examines how courts scrutinized GST arrests and bail where tax evasion was inflated through extrapolation. Key takeaway: evidence-based figures matter more than assumptions.
Explains how Section 74A reshapes GST penalty computation under a unified framework. Key takeaway: penalty rates remain similar, but timelines and flexibility are significantly improved.
The issue was whether revision under Section 263 was valid when the Assessing Officer accepted returns without proper inquiry after a search. The Tribunal upheld revision, holding that lack of meaningful verification made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether alleged commission on bogus donations could be taxed as unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal held that once the donation amount itself is offered to tax, the source stands explained and Section 69C cannot be invoked.
The issue was whether leasing a residential property to a company defeats GST exemption. The key takeaway is that exemption depends on residential use, not who the lessee is.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
