In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal admissibility and evidentiary value.
Excise exemption notifications based on use or intended use should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee as once the goods were used for the intended purposethe fact that a portion was incidentally used for other activities did not disentitle assessee from claiming the exemption.
When an entity served both its members and the public, the dominant object test applies. If the regulatory functions lead to borrower protection and financial stability for low-income groups, the GPU status was maintainable.
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
Solar inverters supplied for solar power projects were eligible for the concessional Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate of 5% as solar inverters constituted an integral component of a solar power-generating system and therefore qualified for the concessional tax rate.
Bright Line Test (BLT) could not be applied for determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) of Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure under the transfer pricing provisions.
Deprivation of property must be based on law which is just, fair and reasonable, the Supreme Court struck down the Bihar law that allowed the State to take over a historic library for a token compensation of just one rupee, holding that such a provision was “confiscatory” and failed constitutional scrutiny.
The company could not claim the concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification No. 41/2017-IT(Rate), as the supply of HDPE drums was made to a chemical manufacturer rather than directly to the registered merchant exporter.
Retrospective cancellation of registration was held to be invalid as the scheme of Act did not permit cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) with retrospective effect in absence of explicit statutory authority.
A petition concerning money laundering, illegal mining and granite quarrying was dismissed as the Court found sufficient averments disclosing cognizable offence against assessee
