The Court ruled that absence of quantified interest and penalty in a GST show cause notice does not by itself invalidate proceedings under the CGST Act. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead.
The Kolkata ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the reasons initially supplied related to a different company and the reopening was based on mechanical satisfaction. The Tribunal ruled that borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind cannot justify reopening under Sections 147 and 148.
The Tribunal ruled that once transfer was held to have occurred in 1993 through the sale agreement, the Assessing Officer could not tax capital gains in Assessment Year 2007-08.
Patna High Court held that denial of personal hearing after the taxpayer specifically requested it in writing violated Section 75(4) of the BGST Act and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that accounting treatment in the Profit and Loss Account does not determine taxability of a receipt. Principal loan waiver remained non-taxable despite being shown as extraordinary income in accounts.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s argument that BSNL VRS payments were only voluntary retirement benefits. It held that the compensation fell within Section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation.
Mumbai ITAT held that discounts offered on gift cards and gift vouchers became an actual expenditure when the instruments were sold and could not be treated as contingent liability. The Tribunal allowed the deduction after noting that unutilised amounts were later offered to tax.
Gujarat High Court observed that additions in bogus purchase cases should be confined to the income component embedded in such transactions rather than the entire purchase amount.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued after the amended limitation period under Section 149 were without jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the extended ten-year period could not apply without material showing escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakh.
The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did not bar consideration of the assessee’s agricultural land exemption claim.
