The Court held that a miscellaneous application cannot be used to reopen a dismissed SLP unless it falls within limited exceptions like clerical errors or executory issues. It emphasized finality of judicial orders and dismissed the recall plea as not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made where loans are advanced from interest-free funds. It observed that availability of own funds and recovery during the year supported the assessee’s claim.
The Court ruled that reversal of ITC after a long delay does not negate interest liability. It emphasized that interest arises from the time of wrongful claim until reversal. Key takeaway: delayed correction does not absolve liability.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
The court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and granted bail after noting that the investigation had been completed. The ruling highlights that continued custody is not necessary once key investigative steps are over.
ITAT held that share capital addition cannot be sustained where identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of investors are supported by documents. The Tribunal found no defect in CIT(A)’s order deleting most of the addition.
The Tribunal ruled that an unregistered agreement does not invalidate exemption if possession is taken and payment is made. The term purchase under Section 54 was interpreted broadly.
