The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment under Section 147 lacked a valid basis. The courts found that the assessee had never claimed Section 10(38) exemption on the alleged penny stock gains.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond four years were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the assessee’s alleged failure to make full and true disclosure. The addition relating to ₹13.10 crore share application money was consequently set aside.
The Tribunal held that once an identical dispute involving the same assessee had been settled by a coordinate Bench, there was no basis to uphold the subsequent demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the competent authority to decide a representation alleging fraudulent GST record manipulation and misappropriation of GST amounts. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits and required a reasoned order within one month.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance on general public utility institutions, the Court observed that entities engaged in professional or trade-related activities warrant detailed scrutiny. The case was remanded for re-examination under the revised legal standards.
The Madras High Court held that provisions for bad and doubtful debts must be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JA because of the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, it permitted audit reports for deduction claims to be filed at the appellate stage.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST adjudication order after finding that the authority incorrectly stated that no reply had been filed. The Court held that ignoring the taxpayer’s submissions violated principles of natural justice.
The Karnataka High Court restored GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns, despite the appeal being dismissed on limitation grounds. The Court held that restoration could be granted where the taxpayer is willing to file pending returns and pay taxes, interest, and penalty.
The judgment recognised the contractual priority of GST and other specified payments from the Revenue Collection Account. The Court permitted fixed licence fee deductions while restraining adjustments towards disputed incremental revenue.
