The Court quashed a stay rejection that contained no reasoning or findings. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to pass a speaking order.
The High Court quashed reassessment notices holding that mere receipt of dividends and capital loss does not establish sham transactions. Allegations against fund managers cannot automatically implicate investors.
The court upheld GST cancellation after finding inconsistent affidavits and no supporting evidence of business activity. Mere allegations of procedural lapse without prejudice were held insufficient.
HC upheld Section 10A deduction after finding that STP unit was a new undertaking with fresh investment and infrastructure. It ruled that unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued much after the surviving period is barred by limitation. Accordingly, notices are set aside and petition is allowed.
The Bombay High Court held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Post-search documents like base notes are insufficient to justify additions.
The Bombay High Court ruled that cancellation of GST registration does not nullify tax liabilities for prior periods, but the matter was remitted for a hearing after the petitioners were initially denied the opportunity.
Bombay High Court held that services provided to foreign entities qualify as export of services and are not intermediary services, allowing GST refund subject to receipt of foreign currency.
The Bombay High Court held that delays caused by genuine technical glitches do not invalidate SVLDRS benefits, distinguishing cases of financial incapacity.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 153A cannot apply to years without incriminating material, reinforcing the principle that tax additions require concrete evidence.
