The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had held that the issues raised by the Revenue were already settled by precedent in the assessee’s own case.
The High Court refused to entertain the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the questions raised had already been decided in the assessee’s favour in an earlier judgment involving the same assessment year.
The Karnataka High Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act could not continue against a former director who had resigned before the company’s commercial activities began. Finding no specific allegations against him, the Court quashed the proceedings.
The Delhi High Court held that whether coal beneficiation amounts to manufacturing involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. It declined to quash prosecution for alleged non-compliance with cost audit requirements under the Companies Act.
The Madras High Court admitted writ petitions challenging a GST demand arising from the classification of logistics services as intermediary services. Holding that the issue required detailed consideration, the Court stayed further recovery proceedings subject to a deposit of Rs.1.80 crore.
The Court held that the delay in e-verification of Form 10B during the pandemic was supported by bona fide reasons. It ruled that denying exemption on technical grounds would cause genuine hardship.
The Court held that producing an accused before a Magistrate in another State without obtaining transit remand rendered the detention illegal. The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards in GST-related arrests.
The High Court set aside the order rejecting ITC after finding that the taxpayer s case required examination under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Delhi ITAT held that the full value of unaccounted sales cannot automatically be treated as taxable income. It restricted the addition to an estimated profit element of 3% on the sales detected during the search.
The ITAT held that investments which did not generate exempt income during the year cannot be considered for Rule 8D disallowance. The ruling reiterates that only income-yielding investments are relevant for Section 14A computation.
