CESTAT Chennai held that villas constructed on separate plots under individual agreements and approvals do not constitute a residential complex. Common amenities and gated community features alone were held insufficient to attract service tax.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act is mandatory when service tax is paid after the due date. Administrative or procedural delays cannot override the statutory liability to pay interest.
The Tribunal held that ledger entries and computer records recovered from a third party were insufficient to establish liability under Section 112(b). Independent corroborative evidence was necessary to sustain the penalty.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer can rely on a sellers valid registration at the time of purchase. ITC cannot be denied merely because the sellers registration was cancelled retrospectively.
The Court upheld deletion of the LTCG addition after finding that the Revenue relied on assumptions rather than evidence. Documentary records established the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Delhi High Court held that the period consumed in granting time to the assessee under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while computing limitation. As reassessment proceedings were initiated within time, the Section 148 notice was held valid.
The Court held that the arrest violated Section 35 of the BNSS because the reasons recorded were generic and not specific to the accused. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued after the death of the assessee were a nullity and could not be sustained. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to proceed against the legal representatives in accordance with law.
The Bombay High Court held that the CGST Act does not permit consolidation of different financial years and tax periods in a single Section 74 show cause notice. The impugned notice was quashed with liberty to issue fresh notices in accordance with law.
The Court upheld deletion of a ₹1 crore addition under Section 68 after noting that the assessee had furnished lender details, source of funds, and repayment evidence. It held that the dispute was purely factual and raised no question of law.
