The notification allows exemption from e-way bill for vehicles moved solely for testing purposes. It clarifies that non-supply transactions can qualify for relief subject to strict compliance.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
The Tribunal held that once the High Court quashed the reassessment for being based on a change of opinion, the additions made in those proceedings could not survive.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Assessing Officer must establish bogus purchases with cogent evidence before making additions. Since the assessee produced complete records and the AO found no defects, the entire addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to issue the fresh notice within the surviving limitation period recognized by the Supreme Court. The reassessment order was therefore quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The sanction was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine the profiteering computation after questions were raised about ignored cost increases, negative values, and supply channel considerations.
GSTAT concluded that elimination of entertainment tax and other levies reduced the effective tax incidence, requiring suppliers to pass on the benefit to subscribers.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of airlines jointly fixing cancellation charges were unsupported by evidence of any agreement or concerted action. As a result, no violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act was established and the complaint was dismissed.
The Competition Commission of India held that exclusive agreements between an online movie ticketing platform and cinemas did not lead to market foreclosure. Despite dominance in the online ticketing market, the Commission found no evidence of denial of market access to competitors.
