The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in proceedings due to lack of knowledge. It remanded the matter to ensure proper hearing and adjudication on merits.
Despite delay and repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a ₹10,000 cost. The ruling balances taxpayer conduct with the need for fair adjudication.
The issue was whether authorities can block ITC beyond available balance. The Court held that Rule 86A allows restriction only on existing credit and does not permit negative blocking.
The issue was whether GST demand could stand despite a later order dropping similar liability. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The key takeaway is that overlapping assessments must be properly reconciled.
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
The case examined classification of bank interest earned by a credit co-operative society. The Tribunal ruled it is business income and not income from other sources. The decision allows full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The case examined default arising from a loan backed by corporate guarantee. The Tribunal found that non-payment triggered insolvency proceedings. The decision highlights consequences of guarantee invocation.
The issue was whether income tax refunds can be appropriated for service tax dues. The High Court ruled that such adjustment violates statutory provisions and directed relief to the taxpayer. The SC dismissed the revenue’s appeal, affirming the outcome.
The case examined whether delay in filing supplementary Bills of Entry warrants penalty. The Tribunal ruled that delay caused by post-clearance discovery of excess goods is justified. The decision emphasizes discretionary waiver under Section 46(3).
The dispute concerned enforcement of long-pending tax demands without timely action. The Court held that prolonged inaction by authorities and absence of proof of service violated fairness. It quashed the notice while allowing fresh remedies.
