The issue was whether compensation paid to flat buyers was capital or revenue expenditure. The Court held it to be revenue expenditure as it was incurred for business purposes and commercial expediency.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The case addressed whether additions can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. The Court held that such additions are impermissible in completed assessments, reinforcing settled legal principles.
The court examined whether a final assessment order could stand without issuing a draft order to an eligible assessee. It held that bypassing the mandatory draft assessment process invalidates the final order and renders it void.
The court examined whether reopening an assessment based on previously scrutinized facts was valid. It held that reassessment without fresh tangible material amounts to a change of opinion and is without jurisdiction.
The Court held that compensation paid to buyers for surrendering rights was incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature. It emphasized commercial expediency as a key factor. The ruling clarifies treatment of such payments in real estate business.
The court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 ceases once a final order under Section 74 is issued. The ruling reinforces that subsequent challenges must focus on the final order, not interim measures.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
The court examined whether delay in Form 10B filing could be condoned but found the authority rejected it on unrelated grounds. It held that such rejection beyond the scope of Section 119(2)(b) was invalid and remanded the matter.
