The case involved denial of deduction due to delayed execution of purchase deed. The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction property qualifies as construction within the extended time limit. It ruled that deduction cannot be denied on technical interpretation of timelines.
The case involved an order passed without any reply from the taxpayer to the show cause notice. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. It held that an opportunity must be given when substantial tax recovery has already occurred.
The case involved reopening of assessment based on issues already examined during scrutiny. The Court held that reassessment without new material is invalid. It ruled that reopening on the same facts amounts to impermissible action.
The case involved denial of ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) allowed ITC within an extended timeline. It ruled that orders rejecting ITC solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable.
Tribunal held that once income is computed under section 44AD using stamp duty value as turnover, a separate addition under section 43CA leads to double taxation and is not permissible.
The Court found that the rejection was only a communication and not a legally valid order. It remitted the matter for fresh decision after proper hearing and consideration of all issues.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that restoration should be considered once the taxpayer complies with filing and payment requirements.
The case involved denial of deduction on interest earned from cooperative bank deposits. The Tribunal held that such income qualifies for deduction as it is derived from investments with a cooperative society.
The issue was whether the assessment order could be revised for lack of inquiry. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and taken a view, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Court examined whether a single notice covering multiple years was valid. It held that differing limitation periods make such notices prejudicial and upheld separate adjudication.
