The case addressed cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The High Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation by filing pending returns and paying dues.
The High Court held that continued detention was unnecessary after joint interrogation. Bail was directed following a short extension for further investigation.
The ITAT held that unsupported DCF valuation could not justify high share premium. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was restored after setting aside the appellate relief.
The Tribunal held that a short delay caused by hospitalisation must be condoned when supported by evidence. Procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive justice.
The ITAT condoned a 66-day delay after accepting that the trust was unfamiliar with the income-tax e-filing system. The matter was restored for fresh consideration with costs imposed.
The court declined to keep the writ pending once the appellate forum became functional, directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal. It reaffirmed that disputes must move to GSTAT when an effective remedy is available.
The Court held that an assessment passed solely on GST portal notices without granting personal hearing was unsustainable and remanded the matter on payment of 25% of disputed tax.
The Court held that an assessee cannot be denied TDS credit or saddled with tax demand when tax has been deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer.
The ITAT held that reopening an assessment after four years without any new tangible material is invalid. A reassessment based merely on re-examining earlier facts was struck down as a change of opinion.
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision to admit an additional TP ground allowing reconsideration of AEs as the tested party. It held that no substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh factual examination.
