The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST assessment order after finding that the personal hearing was scheduled before the last date for filing a reply. The Court held that such a hearing was illusory and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Delhi set aside a reassessment after holding that the ACIT lacked jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found that the assessee’s returned income was below the CBDT threshold requiring jurisdiction to remain with the ITO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing authorities cannot assign a NIL arm’s length price when the assessee has demonstrated actual receipt of intra-group services through supporting evidence.
NCLAT held that challenges to the approved resolution plan could not be reopened after earlier proceedings had attained finality. The appeal was dismissed as an attempt to re-agitate settled issues.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the assessee establishes a real and sufficient nexus between the disputed input services and its output services. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove otherwise and set aside the credit denial.
The Court held that TDS certificates and income tax filings established a prima facie jural relationship between the parties. It granted interim protection after finding that the respondent could not deny a relationship previously acknowledged before tax authorities.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 could not be invoked where YEIDA payments were recorded in the books and funded through an RBI-registered NBFC. The ruling emphasizes that explained and documented sources of investment cannot be treated as unexplained investments.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 cannot rest merely on information received from the Investigation Wing or Insight Portal. Since the Assessing Officer conducted no independent enquiry or verification, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed under Section 44BB where the Revenue failed to prove the existence of a Permanent Establishment in India. The addition of Rs. 99.50 crore was therefore deleted.
