CIT Vs Patel Engg. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The central issue was whether the assessee qualified as a […]
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration without proof of proper service of notice. The Court held the order invalid and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that Section 11B does not permit recovery of already sanctioned refunds. Recovery must follow separate legal provisions. The ruling clarifies limits of refund recovery powers.
The court held that issuing multiple demand notices for a single adjudication order is improper. It directed issuance of a composite notice to enable a single appeal.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
Tribunal held that GST-based turnover differences cannot be taxed again when income was already recorded in prior years and notional interest recognized under IND-AS cannot be taxed unless it actually accrues.
The court held that passing an assessment order without granting personal hearing violates principles of natural justice. It set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that cryogenic storage tanks qualify as capital goods when used for providing taxable services. It rejected the restriction that such goods must be used within the factory. The ruling confirms eligibility of credit based on functional use.
The court examined whether delay in filing returns during insolvency proceedings constituted genuine hardship. It held that delay caused due to CIRP and management transition must be condoned to avoid unjust denial of tax benefits.
