The case examined whether settlement of a corporate guarantee liability qualifies as business expenditure. The Tribunal held that the guarantee was given for business purposes and the resulting payment was allowable.
The case examined whether transaction value can be rejected without inquiry. The Tribunal held that absence of investigation and proper procedure invalidates valuation enhancement.
The case addressed whether stock discrepancies could be attributed to a sister concern. The Court held that absence of supporting evidence justified the VAT demand and confirmed the assessment.
The issue was whether share transactions constituted business income or capital gains. The Court upheld investor status based on consistent treatment and factual findings, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
The Court held that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively unless the show cause notice clearly proposes such action. Orders exceeding the scope of the notice are legally unsustainable.
The Court held that retrospective cancellation requires clear justification and cannot be applied mechanically. In absence of reasons, the effective date was revised to the show cause notice date.
AI Adil Trader Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court) The Telangana High Court examined the validity of a show cause notice dated 01.11.2024 and a consequential order cancelling GST registration dated 16.01.2025, both challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective as it failed […]
The High Court quashed a service tax demand passed ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the show cause notice stage.
The Tribunal held that demand based solely on Form 26AS and ITR data without corroboration is unsustainable. It set aside the entire tax demand along with penalties and interest.
The Tribunal examined whether loans for non-agricultural purposes disqualify a co-operative society from deduction under Section 80P. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that such loans do not bar deduction. The ruling clarifies that credit facilities to members need not be limited to agricultural purposes.
