Noting that exemption was allowed in multiple subsequent years on identical facts, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s stand. The addition and denial of exemption were accordingly set aside.
Court issued notice after allegations that enrolment rules were bypassed through paid oral interviews, and sought an explanation from the State Bar Council.
In the absence of any stay or reversal of an earlier binding order, the Tribunal followed settled precedent. Penalties imposed on co-noticees were therefore set aside along with the impugned order.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹45.36 crore GST demand after the Finance Ministry clarified that Section 86 of the CGST Act imposes joint liability only for goods, not services. The ruling confirms that agents cannot be taxed for services supplied by the principal without statutory backing.
The Bombay High Court stayed the entire tax demand after finding that authorities taxed gross receipts without deducting expenditure. The ruling reiterates that only real income can be brought to tax.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries into goodwill depreciation. A plausible view taken after scrutiny cannot be branded as erroneous.
ITAT held that arm’s length price for electricity supplied to related entities must be benchmarked against the gross tariff charged by the State Electricity Authority. Excluding mandatory charges distorts comparability and is impermissible.
The court examined whether pre-deposit under Section 112 could be enforced when the GST Tribunal was not yet functional. It held that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit still applies and upheld the interim direction.
The court examined whether delay in filing a revised return caused by an audit reporting mistake and COVID-19 disruption should be condoned. It held that the explanation was bona fide and directed authorities to process the revised return afresh.
The case examined whether ITC can be blocked beyond the balance available in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A. The court held that such negative blocking is impermissible and restricted the blockage to the actual ledger balance.
