The Tribunal upheld exemption where the assessee invested the entire capital gain within time but possession was delayed due to builder-related litigation. The ruling confirms that investment, not possession, is the key requirement under Section 54F.
Proceedings were closed after it was confirmed that GST ITC benefits had already been passed on to flat buyers. The decision emphasizes that resolved ITC benefit disputes do not warrant continued proceedings.
An anti-profiteering complaint was dismissed after investigation showed the project started after GST implementation. The decision highlights that Section 171 does not apply without a pre-GST to post-GST comparison.
The SC dismissed Revenue appeals holding reassessment notices unsustainable as the issue stood concluded by an earlier binding judgment. The ruling reinforces adherence to settled law in reopening cases.
The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
The Tribunal held that reassessment was invalid as the statutory sanction under Section 151 was granted mechanically. Mere use of the word Approved does not show application of mind and vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that ad hoc disallowance is unsustainable when books are not rejected. Disallowance was reduced to 8% based on facts and past practice.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
Failure to demonstrate a dated approval under Section 151 proved fatal to the Revenue’s case. The decision underscores strict compliance in reopening assessments.
The assessment was set aside as the Revenue produced no acknowledgment of service. The ruling reiterates that service of notice is foundational to reassessment.
