The Court held that allegations of organized tax evasion are covered by the exception in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of low tax effect.
The Delhi High Court held that expenditure on gifts, boarding, and lodging incurred for a General Body Meeting was allowable under Section 37. The Court ruled that expenses incurred to fulfill statutory obligations constitute business expenditure.
The Court held that while the assessees reply period had to be excluded under Section 149, the Assessing Officer still failed to issue the Section 148 notice within the extended statutory timeline. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
The Court held that the period during which the review petition remained pending should be excluded while computing limitation for issuance of a show cause notice. It also directed the petitioner to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
The Court held that a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act cannot be rejected without following principles of natural justice. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after a hearing.
Where ITAT directed inclusion of Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable solely on the basis that it satisfied the export turnover filter without examining its functional comparability with assessee, and further directed inclusion of CG Vak Software & Exports Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that personal-use disallowance principles applicable to individuals cannot automatically apply to companies. The Tribunal’s order sustaining disallowance of one-sixth of car and telephone expenses was set aside.
The Delhi High Court held that RTI replies showing tax return filings and bank entries did not establish that specific payments were accounted for in taxable income. As a result, no ground existed to review the earlier dismissal of the writ petition.
The Delhi High Court held that GST registration could not be cancelled retrospectively when the show cause notice did not indicate such action. The order was quashed as it travelled beyond the scope of the notice.
The dispute concerns whether works contracts executed for the Delhi Jal Board attract GST at 12% or 18%. The High Court held that the legal issue regarding DJB’s status as a local authority requires consideration and stayed the show cause notice proceedings.
