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.
The Tripura High Court stayed a Bar Association resolution and show cause proceedings initiated against an advocate who appeared in court during a boycott call. The Court held that lawyers cannot be restrained from performing professional duties toward clients.
The High Court ruled that refund claims arising from unconstitutional GST levies are not restricted by the limitation provisions under Section 54 of the GST Act. Interest at 6% was directed from the date of tax payment till refund.
The ITAT Surat held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already conducted inquiries and examined relevant records. Mere discrepancies in Insight Portal GST data were held insufficient to render the assessment order erroneous.
ITAT Surat restored reassessment appeals to the CIT(A) after observing that the assessee should receive one final opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal imposed costs due to partial compliance before the appellate authority.
Delhi ITAT directed exclusion of a comparable company engaged in video conferencing solutions after noting that the DRP had already found it functionally incomparable to the assessee’s software distribution business.
