The Court extended interim relief to contractors as the classification of Delhi Jal Board as a local authority is under consideration. The final GST rate applicable to contracts will depend on this determination.
The Court held that recording satisfaction after a delay of nine months was not immediate as required by law. It upheld quashing of assessment proceedings and deletion of undisclosed income addition.
The Court held that while detention proceedings may continue, authorities must consider provisional release of goods under Section 67(6). It directed issuance of a reasoned order without examining merits.
The Court held that a direction under Section 142(2A) entails civil consequences and requires a pre-decisional hearing. It reaffirmed the application of natural justice principles.
The Court stayed GST proceedings while examining if Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority. The outcome will determine applicable GST rate on works contracts.
The Court held that a delay of more than eight years in passing an order pursuant to a Tribunal remand cannot be considered reasonable. It ruled that such proceedings are barred by limitation and upheld the refund with interest.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal examined denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to delayed filing of audit reports. It held that the delay overlapped with COVID-19 disruptions and required reconsideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on condonation outcome.
The Court held that differing judicial interpretations made the answer ambiguous. It granted relief by recognizing both answers as valid and directed accommodation of both candidates.
