The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that expenses already disallowed by the assessee were again disallowed during processing, resulting in double addition. The issue was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Rule 9 authorizes the Assessing Officer to reasonably estimate non-resident income from Indian assets, property, or business connections when the precise taxable amount cannot be ascertained.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order for FY 2019-20, holding that the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST cannot be denied where identical errors exist. Authorities were directed to reconsider the matter under applicable GST Circulars.
Gujarat High Court held that the respondent officer could not have assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment since there was nothing which indicate that petitioner has participated knowingly in the sham transaction. Accordingly, order is quashed and set aside.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting the petitioner’s explanation of financial and health difficulties. However, restoration was made conditional upon filing pending returns and restricting ITC utilization until departmental scrutiny.
The High Court set aside a Section 63 GST assessment passed against an unregistered contractor after authorities admitted confusion caused by identical names and incorrect reliance on WAMIS data.
Rule 8 clarifies that for Indian seafarers on foreign-bound ships, the period between joining and signing off as recorded in the Continuous Discharge Certificate is excluded from stay in India for tax residency purposes.
Rule 7 mandates strict eligibility, rating, listing, investment, and compliance conditions for zero coupon bonds, empowering the Central Government to approve, reject, or withdraw notification based on adherence to these requirements.
The Supreme Court permitted the Revenue to approach the High Court with a clarification effective from 01.04.2021. It kept all issues open after the High Court had quashed reassessment notices for lack of faceless procedure.
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
