The tribunal held that dismissal for delay and confirmation on merits without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice, warranting remand for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that sanction for reopening was taken under the wrong statutory provision. As a result, the reassessment notice and all consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld taxation of enhanced compensation and interest under land acquisition after insertion of section 56(2)(viii). The ruling confirms that such receipts are taxable despite earlier judicial views.
The Tribunal found that additions under section 69A were made without examining evidence due to non-compliance. The matter was remanded to allow verification of claimed trading and agricultural receipts.
The court held that failure to apply Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular invalidated the wilful defaulter declaration. Non-Executive Directors cannot be tagged without strict proof of knowledge, consent, or connivance.
The court held that an Assessing Officer must give clear reasons while rejecting an immunity application under Section 270AA. An unreasoned rejection order was found unsustainable and was set aside.
The Supreme Court declined to quash the FIR despite claims of a civil dispute but held that custody was unnecessary after filing of the charge sheet. The accused were directed to appear and were assured bail, balancing prosecution with personal liberty.
The court examined whether withholding tax could be imposed solely on the basis of an alleged virtual service permanent establishment. It ruled that such a concept is not recognised under the DTAA and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after the constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, permitting the taxpayer to file a statutory appeal. The ruling clarifies that writ jurisdiction need not continue once the appellate forum is operational.
The court held that passing a GST order on the same day as filing an additional reply does not automatically indicate irregularity. A detailed order showing consideration of replies does not warrant writ interference.
