The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
The Court held that cancellation based on reasons not mentioned in the SCN is unsustainable. The retrospective cancellation was modified to align with procedural fairness.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied merely because the purchase agreement was unregistered. Substantial payment and possession were considered sufficient for claiming relief.
The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling applies the beneficial proviso to Section 50C retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that different floors of the same building constitute one residential house. Deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied on the ground of structural division.
The Supreme Court upheld that Section 206C(1C) applies only to lawful mining arrangements involving lease or licence. It ruled that compounding fees from illegal mining are not subject to TCS.
The High Court held that Section 206C(1C) applies only to lawful mining arrangements involving lease or licence. It ruled that compounding fees from illegal mining are outside its scope and not subject to TCS.
The tribunal held that gains from sale of shares did not fall under Article 14(4). It ruled that Article 14(6) applies, making gains taxable only in the country of residence. The decision clarifies DTAA interpretation.
The court declined to hear the GST dispute as an appeal remedy existed. It held that pre-deposit requirements cannot justify bypassing statutory remedies.
The tribunal held that sale through regional offices does not amount to trading. It found that the goods were manufactured and duty was paid. The ruling clarifies distinction between manufacturing and trading.
