The Delhi High Court held that consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as export of services under GST. The Court ruled that incidental involvement of Indian students does not convert such services into intermediary services.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court ruling that approval stating fit case for reopening satisfied Section 151 requirements. The reassessment proceedings linked to alleged accommodation entries were restored.
Mumbai ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter relating to TDS on payments to Facebook Netherlands was remanded for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed when PAN details, ledger accounts, and other records were already submitted.
The Tribunal ruled that margins agreed under a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement may be used for non-covered AEs when transactions are functionally similar. The decision emphasized consistency and the lack of separate benchmarking by the TPO.
The Court observed that allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, and suppression must contain clear particulars enabling effective response by the taxpayer. The absence of reasons rendered the show cause notice and subsequent orders invalid.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that the statutory conditions under Section 153C were not properly satisfied. It held that defective recording of satisfaction vitiated the entire proceedings against the third party assessee.
Court ruled that differing interpretations on classification of services as OIDAR cannot automatically justify invocation of Section 74 unless deliberate concealment or suppression is established by the Department.
Mumbai ITAT observed that assessable value under customs law may differ from invoice value and such variation by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69C without further evidence.
Court held that there was no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the handwritten inquiry register relied upon by the department. Statements recorded during search proceedings also did not mention the assessee.
