The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The tribunal examined whether sales receipts can be treated as unexplained cash credits. It held that documented sales recorded in books cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
ACIT Vs Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Nagpur) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur, arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Year 2015–16. The assessee, engaged in design, development, […]
The Court held that ongoing disputes regarding defective goods and account reconciliation existed prior to the demand notice. It ruled that such disputes bar admission of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC.
The tribunal examined whether repair and maintenance services provided to Naval Authorities are taxable. It held that such services are not liable to service tax as they are not linked to commercial activities.
The Tribunal held that default under the loan agreement existed independently of the arbitral award challenge. It ruled that absence of a stay on the award allows initiation of insolvency proceedings.
The court denied bail after finding that the applicant’s involvement in the alleged GST fraud could not be ruled out based on investigation records. The ruling highlights that prima facie evidence and seriousness of allegations outweigh claims of false implication at the bail stage.
The Tribunal held that allowing retention of the amount would amount to preferential recovery. It directed refund to the insolvency estate and limited the claim to the admitted amount.
