Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263. Fresh additions unrelated to the revision directions were therefore rightly deleted.
CESTAT Chennai held that recipients of Goods Transport Operator services were liable to pay service tax for 1997-98 under retrospective amendments. However, interest demand was set aside because the assessee filed the prescribed return within the statutory time limit.
CESTAT Delhi held that alleged receipt of one raw material, namely Scented Tobacco, was insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance of Gutka. The Tribunal set aside excise duty demand due to lack of corroborative evidence regarding other raw materials and production activity.
Gujarat High Court upheld confiscation proceedings under Section 130 after noting that goods were transported without an e-way bill and penalty had been voluntarily paid without protest.
Delhi ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record how the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reopening for violating the first proviso to Section 147.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST recovery proceedings under Section 79 can be initiated against a bank after an assessment order becomes final and remains unpaid. The Court ruled that no separate pre-recovery notice to the dealer is required under the provision.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22. The Tribunal ruled that amendments excluding goodwill from depreciable assets operate prospectively.
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
Kerala High Court ruled that authorities must determine both whether the payment amounts to a supply under Section 7(1) and whether exemption provisions apply. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
