The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order after the petitioner stated that notices were sent to a paid email account that became inaccessible due to subscription default. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and GST registration was restored.
The petitioner stated that reassessment notices were not acted upon because the auditor failed to inform it about the proceedings. The Court allowed fresh adjudication and restored the matter to the Section 148A(b) stage.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not alter book profit under Section 115JB by disallowing losses from alleged penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that such adjustment was not permitted under the statutory explanations to Section 115JB.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a service tax order after observing that the authority failed to properly examine exemption claims under Notification No.25/2012-ST. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
Relying on its earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal held that gross profit should be estimated at 0.40% rather than 2% of turnover. The order emphasised consistency in estimation across assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned a 60-day delay after accepting explanations relating to migration of the ITAT portal and the death of a family member. The registration dispute was thereafter heard on merits.
The Court held that common trade parlance and industry understanding treated the goods as plastic sacks rather than textile products. This finding supported classification under HSN 3923.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that retrospective GST registration cancellation cannot be sustained without specifically informing the taxpayer through a proper notice. The Court set aside the cancellation order for violation of natural justice principles.
The Gujarat High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the Income Tax Department relied on an undated and uninvestigated complaint. The Court held that reopening based on conjectures and unsupported material could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that leasehold rights transferred with land and building fall within the ambit of Section 50C. The matter relating to reassessment validity was sent back for fresh adjudication.
