The issue involved denial of LTCG exemption based on allegations of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal held that without direct evidence or nexus, such additions cannot be sustained.
The case examined whether separate penalties under CGST and SGST were permissible. The Court ruled such imposition unjustified and restricted the penalty to ₹25,000.
The case shows that failure to respond to GST notices led to tax demand even for exempt supplies like raw milk. Authorities presumed taxability due to lack of evidence. Timely replies and documentation are crucial to avoid such outcomes.
The paper shows that loan fraud persists due to enforcement failures, not lack of legal provisions. It highlights delays in detection, weak forensic systems, and fragmented supervision as key issues.
The structure allows companies to keep project debt off their balance sheets while limiting liability. However, lenders rely only on project assets and cash flows, increasing their exposure if the subsidiary fails.
GSTAT serves as the second appellate authority with defined procedures and timelines. Compliance with filing and pre-deposit rules is essential.
The amendment shifts place of supply to the recipient’s location. This impacts export eligibility and RCM applicability based on time of supply.
SEBI clarifies that physical security creation alone is insufficient for demat assets. Trustees must ensure depository-level registration to validate charges and protect investors.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid if approval is obtained from an incorrect authority. It clarified that sanction must strictly comply with Section 151 based on elapsed time limits. The ruling reinforces jurisdictional safeguards in reassessment cases.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
