Pursuant to High Court observations and fresh investigation, GSTAT held that the developer did not gain additional ITC benefit warranting price reduction.
GSTAT held that proceedings under Section 74 could not be sustained in absence of fraud or suppression and remanded the matter for fresh determination under Section 73 by the Proper Officer.
ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the AO failed to verify the taxability of ₹669 crore received by a trust under Section 56(2)(x), rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial.
The Tribunal held that the scope of enquiry at the registration stage is limited to objects and genuineness of activities. The application was remanded after the trust undertook to delete clauses permitting overseas fund use.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order quashing a provisional attachment, holding that the matter had become academic after confirmation under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. The Court emphasized that parties must pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Court partly allowed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners claim was found genuine upon verification. Authorities were directed to reconsider restoration of GST registration from the original date.
Observing that the assessee invested the entire share of sale proceeds within two years and obtained possession, ITAT Pune allowed Section 54B exemption. The addition under Section 69A was consequently deleted.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging GST assessment orders due to unexplained delay. It held that lack of timely action bars relief under writ jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that even if Section 11 exemption is denied due to lack of registration, the Assessing Officer cannot tax entire gross receipts without examining expenditure. Only net income, if any, can be brought to tax.
The Bombay High Court set aside a service tax demand on an advocate, holding that legal services were exempt under Notification Nos. 25/2012 and 30/2012. The Court ruled that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in proceeding contrary to binding notifications.
