The Court stayed GST proceedings while examining if Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority. The outcome will determine applicable GST rate on works contracts.
The Court held that a delay of more than eight years in passing an order pursuant to a Tribunal remand cannot be considered reasonable. It ruled that such proceedings are barred by limitation and upheld the refund with interest.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when initiated beyond the statutory time limit. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation and invalid. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to limitation provisions in reassessment cases.
The ITAT held that no addition can be made under Section 69A when the source of cash is explained through bank withdrawals. Doubts about utilisation alone cannot justify treating it as unexplained money.
The Tribunal examined denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 due to delayed filing of audit reports. It held that the delay overlapped with COVID-19 disruptions and required reconsideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on condonation outcome.
The Court held that differing judicial interpretations made the answer ambiguous. It granted relief by recognizing both answers as valid and directed accommodation of both candidates.
The Supreme Court held that the National Green Tribunal cannot order removal of encroachments when the dispute does not involve a substantial environmental question under Schedule I laws. The ruling clarifies limits of NGT jurisdiction in cases involving municipal or town planning violations.
The Supreme Court held that employer-provided group insurance benefits cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation as they arise from an independent contractual relationship. It ruled that such benefits do not have a direct nexus with the accident and cannot reduce statutory compensation.
The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire class. It upheld that uniform treatment satisfies statutory requirements under Section 106.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has conducted detailed inquiries and adopted a plausible view. The Tribunal ruled that a mere change of opinion by the PCIT does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial.
