DG Anti Profiteering Vs Mantri Castles Private Limited (GSTAT) The proceedings arose from a reference received from the Standing Committee on 30.05.2022 to investigate an application alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied for the project “Mantri Serenity” at Bangalore. The allegation concerned non-passing of benefit under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The […]
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The High Court ruled that the amended refund formula under Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. Earlier rejection and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that mere booking of flats and receipt of token advances do not justify revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method without legally enforceable agreements.
The Court held that Section 119(2)(b) empowers condonation to avoid genuine hardship and rejected a hyper-technical denial of tax benefit. Delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned and Section 115BAA benefit restored.
ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band under property valuation provisions applies retrospectively. The PCIT’s revision was set aside as it amounted to a change of opinion.
The Court ruled that an assessee cannot invoke Section 139(8A) after initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 143(2). It affirmed the disallowance of deductions and held that appeal is the proper remedy.
DRAT Allahabad set aside the DRT order for not examining the borrower’s plea of non-service of Section 13 notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the DRT’s direction to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs, finding no infirmity in the interim order. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
