The Court set aside the order because the penalty was not disclosed in the statutory Form DRC-01. It held that demands must be clearly specified in the prescribed notice.
The Court held that affiliation and NOC issuance by universities are statutory duties, not business activities. Therefore, such fees cannot be treated as taxable supply under GST, and related assessment orders were set aside.
The High Court ruled that reopening based on unrelated and non-specific seized material is not permissible. It concluded that no prima facie belief of income escapement could be formed. The decision highlights limits on the use of indirect evidence.
The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. It rejected the reliance on registration date alone. The ruling clarifies timing criteria for capital gains exemption.
The Tribunal held that revisionary powers cannot be used to substitute the AO’s view with that of the Pr. CIT. It emphasized that such substitution is beyond Section 263. The decision protects independent assessment decisions.
The issue involved whether jurisdictional officers could issue reassessment notices. The Court set aside High Court rulings after a retrospective amendment clarified their authority and remanded the matter.
The court disposed of the petition after the State withdrew the contested GST cancellation order. Authorities were directed to restore the registration promptly. The ruling clarifies that defective orders may be withdrawn and corrected.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order after finding that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice. It remitted the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Court found that the authority acted solely on a recommendation without independent evaluation. It ruled that such action does not meet the statutory requirement of reason to believe.
The court held that solar power system supplies must follow the statutory 70:30 valuation mechanism, rejecting full 18% taxation. It ruled that separate invoicing does not negate eligibility for concessional treatment.
