The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS was required to be deducted on the full consideration of ₹4.81 crore.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s approach of granting interest only on 7.5% statutory pre-deposit. It held that interest was payable on the entire ₹15 lakh deposited during investigation.
The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court failed to consider statutory presumptions and post-mortem findings while granting bail in a dowry death case. The bail order was set aside after the Court found serious errors in judicial discretion.
The Bombay High Court held that corporate guarantees issued without any fee, commission, or consideration cannot be treated as taxable supplies under GST. The Court quashed GST proceedings and show cause notices issued against the company.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that procedural defects in appeal filings are curable and cannot justify outright dismissal without granting an opportunity for correction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential service tax could not be demanded by reclassifying erection and installation services as Works Contract Service. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly paid VAT on goods and service tax on the service component.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that general expenses could not be disallowed merely on suspicion or comparative increase without identifying defects in books or non-business expenditure. The Tribunal observed that the AO made the addition without proper examination of records.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs authorities cannot enhance declared transaction value without first following the mandatory two-step verification process under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to establish valid grounds for rejecting the declared value.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the Government department was aware of service tax liability because service tax had been specifically included in the project price bids. The Tribunal treated the project as an EPC contract falling under Works Contract Services.
