The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal citing unexplained delay and no merit in challenging the High Court ruling. The High Court had quashed reassessment for lack of facts specific to relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal held that mere non-payment or expiry of limitation does not amount to cessation of liability. In absence of actual benefit or remission, addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to entertain a writ petition due to availability of statutory appeal. It permitted the petitioner to file an appeal without being barred by delay.
The Court declined to interfere with the GST demand order as the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy. It emphasized that disputes relating to adjudication must be addressed through statutory channels. The ruling reinforces the primacy of appellate remedies in tax matters.
The case involved reopening of assessment on deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as time-barred, leaving intact the High Court ruling that reassessment was invalid on a settled issue.
The court held that reopening of assessment was invalid since the deduction issue was already settled in favour of the assessee. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based on an issue covered by binding precedent.
The case involved disallowance of business expenses where activity was minimal. ITAT held that existence of even limited business justified partial allowance and restricted disallowance to ₹1 lakh.
The issue was whether delay in cheque clearance attracts TDS interest. ITAT held that payment date is the cheque tender date, and no interest is leviable if submitted within due date.
The issue was whether a show cause notice cancelling GST registration can be challenged via writ. The SC held it is not maintainable and allowed adjudication to proceed.
The issue involved large unsecured loans without full supporting evidence. ITAT held that identity and creditworthiness were not properly established and sent the matter back for fresh verification.
