CESTAT Delhi held that bona fide classification of goods doesn’t result into willful suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period of limitation not justified. Thus, order deserves to be set aside and appeal is allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that the rent received by leasing out residential premises for the purpose of students, staff and teachers would not be exigible / amenable to GST. Accordingly, order is set aside and present petition is allowed.
The High Court held that the FIR had been quashed after examining the allegations and finding no prima facie offence. Breach of a marriage settlement cannot justify recalling a final judicial order.
The Court held that the petitioner had already brought the matter to the authorities and declined to issue a mandamus. It expressed confidence that authorities would consider earlier observations while formulating a model policy.
The Supreme Court held that candidates with benchmark disabilities could be considered for Group C posts identified as suitable under a 2021 notification. Authorities were directed to process their dossiers and ensure appointment.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained without incriminating material discovered during a search, leading to deletion of major additions and dismissal of Revenue appeals.
The Tribunal upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry into excess diesel shortage claimed by the assessee. It held that incomplete enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee could not respond to certain notices. The case was restored for reconsideration after giving adequate opportunity.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax credit on business support and management consultancy services cannot be denied as such services fall within “activities relating to business,” making them eligible input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules.
The Supreme Court upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer did not record dissatisfaction with the assessee’s computation before invoking Rule 8D.
