The Uttarakhand High Court allowed a fresh revocation application after noting that GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, but revocation was rejected on a different ground. The Court directed reconsideration upon filing pending returns and payment of dues.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that preferential location charges for flats form part of construction services and cannot be taxed separately. The Court quashed earlier advance ruling orders after relying on the GST Council recommendation and government clarification.
The Supreme Court held that disclosure of hash value and expert certification under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has a rational nexus with ensuring authenticity and integrity of electronic records.
The Supreme Court ruled that a decree passed without deciding maintainability and jurisdiction issues cannot be executed. It held that absence of judicial reasoning rendered the decree void and unenforceable.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings violated principles of natural justice since the assessee was not provided an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order under Section 148A(d).
The Supreme Court held that limitation cannot be treated as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the CPC because it does not affect the courts jurisdiction to entertain a suit. The ruling clarified that Section 9A applies only to defects relating to the courts competence to receive the suit.
Telangana High Court held that reassessment notices under Section 148 were time-barred because they were dispatched from the ITBA portal after 31.03.2021. The Court ruled that mere digital signing or generation of notices within limitation was insufficient without actual dispatch.
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at a premature stage when reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are yet to be concluded. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies.
The ITAT Agra held that the tax authorities failed to consider earlier cash withdrawals while treating demonetization deposits as unexplained. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.1 lakh and granted substantial relief to the assessee.
The ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had disclosed sales and provided debtor details. The Tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
