The Gauhati High Court held that partners who retained benefits from GST violations and acted behind such transactions can be penalized under Section 122(1A). The ruling clarifies that liability extends beyond the taxable entity in appropriate cases.
The Telangana High Court held that recovery proceedings under Section 226(3) cannot automatically extend to a daughter’s bank account merely because she is related to the assessee.
The Madras High Court held that overseas travel under LTC was merely an administrative concession without statutory backing. Its withdrawal did not violate service conditions or employees’ rights.
The Court held that an employer acting in accordance with interim judicial directions restraining TDS deduction cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
The Telangana High Court held that an assessee cannot file an updated return under Section 139(8A) once assessment proceedings have commenced or are completed. The ruling clarifies that the third proviso to Section 139(8A) bars updated returns after issuance of scrutiny notices.
The High Court set aside the Order-in-Original after noting the petitioner’s grievance that submitted documents were not considered due to formatting issues. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to present all records.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be justified solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax, where the purchasing dealer acted bona fide and complied with statutory requirements.
The Delhi High Court admitted appeals challenging the Tribunal’s reliance on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for directing a fresh valuation exercise in a slump sale transaction. The Court framed substantial questions on the legality of invoking provisions allegedly inapplicable during the relevant assessment year.
The Court held that writ petitions need not continue once the GSTAT becomes operational and statutory appeal timelines are available. It directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy after complying with the prescribed pre-deposit requirements.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose paper lacking any connection with the taxpayer. In the absence of corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction, the reopening notice and reassessment order were set aside.
