The Bombay High Court ruled that the six-month limitation under Section 254(2) starts from the date of receipt of the ITAT order, not the date of its passing, ensuring petitioners can file timely rectification applications.
The Court held that the show-cause notice under Section 73 CGST did not lack jurisdiction. It directed the petitioner to file a reply and allowed the Adjudicating Authority to examine all objections independently.
The High Court allowed a religious society to submit delayed audit documents, citing the treasurer’s age and Covid-19 as valid reasons, directing authorities to reconsider exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that legal control under a JDA constitutes transfer for capital gains purposes. The assessee must provide acquisition cost details for recomputation.
Court directed deposit of 25% disputed tax, personal hearing, and submission of reply to ensure due process before final GST order.
The ITAT restored the case for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee filed a return showing a loss and was not given proper opportunity to be heard before dismissal of appeal.
The Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings under Section 279(1) after the petitioner challenged the prosecution sanction, citing lack of collegium approval and denial of personal hearing.
The Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, citing questions on jurisdiction and compliance with CBDT circulars for alleged tax evasion.
The Supreme Court upheld mandatory pre-deposit conditions under the VAT law, ruling that appeals can be lawfully restricted by statutory payment requirements.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
