The Court set aside a show cause notice issued for multiple years in a single proceeding. It held that the GST law requires separate assessment for each financial year. The key takeaway is that consolidation of tax periods is not permissible under Section 74.
The case examined whether the accused could disprove liability under Section 138. The court upheld conviction as the presumption remained unrebutted and evidence supported the complainant’s claim.
Bombay High Court held that managerial and technical services provided from China to India through virtual means constitutes service rendered in India. Accordingly, rejection of application seeking NIL withholding tax based on pending assessments before ITAT justifiable.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid if approval is obtained from an incorrect authority. It clarified that sanction must strictly comply with Section 151 based on elapsed time limits. The ruling reinforces jurisdictional safeguards in reassessment cases.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The Bombay High Court held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a company that ceased to exist after amalgamation are void. All related notices and orders were set aside. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity.
The Bombay High Court upheld ITAT’s ruling that payments for Business Information Reports did not attract TDS under Section 195. The decision relied on consistent AAR rulings on identical facts.
The case involved conflicting reasons between the show-cause notice and final order, with no proper consideration of the reply. The court held such inconsistency invalid and restored the registration.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired limitation cannot be revived through later amendments, rendering the reassessment void.
The court held that reassessment notices for A.Y. 2015–16 issued after 1 April 2021 are invalid based on the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court. All consequential proceedings were set aside.
