The Bombay High Court held that transportation services in CIF imports form part of a composite supply and cannot be taxed separately under GST. The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohit Minerals to quash the demand.
GSTAT held that failure to pass on additional Input Tax Credit benefits to eligible homebuyers violated Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal ordered refund of profiteered amounts with GST, interest and penalty.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for room rent, medical tests, medicines, and consumables were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The CCI held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, consumables, room rent, and diagnostic services were not substantiated. The Commission found that patients could assess treatment costs beforehand and no separate aftermarket was established.
SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue share. Court noted that such income could not be taxed again in member’s hands.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
The Madras High Court held that the option under Section 36(1)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act belongs exclusively to the assessee and cannot be substituted by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed recomputation of taxable income after rejecting the Department’s restrictive interpretation.
The Karnataka High Court directed release of goods and conveyance after noting that the petitioner had already complied with the appellate authority’s order imposing 200% tax penalty under Section 129(1)(a). The Court required an indemnity bond pending conclusion of revisional proceedings.
Kerala High Court held that interception of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction of its declared destination constituted a strong prima facie circumstance supporting GST detention proceedings. The writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that TTD qualifies as both a Governmental Authority and Governmental Entity under GST notifications. Assessment and appellate orders denying concessional GST benefits were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
