ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each assessment year.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST arrest after finding that the authorities had complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and due procedure was followed.
The Bombay High Court held that a GST adjudication order imposing demand beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice violates Section 75(7) of the GST law. The Court quashed both the notice and the final order as unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot combine multiple financial years into a single proceeding. The Court ruled that GST assessments and limitation periods operate separately for each financial year.
The ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
NCLT Chandigarh ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor after the Committee of Creditors rejected the only resolution plan received during CIRP. The Tribunal held that requirements under Section 33 of the IBC had been fully satisfied.
CESTAT Bangalore held that services rendered by a sub-contractor for authorized operations within an SEZ are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied merely because services were provided through main contractors.
