The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the taxpayer’s request to treat an earlier court-ordered deposit as statutory pre-deposit for GST appeals. The issue arose due to changes in the GST portal architecture and appeal filing process.
The Madras High Court directed removal of a bank account attachment after the purchaser reversed the disputed Input Tax Credit and proceedings against it were dropped. The Court, however, restrained the purchaser from making payments to the supplier pending resolution of related disputes.
The Madras High Court allowed reconsideration of an ex parte GST assessment after the assessee explained failure to respond due to a part-time accountant’s lapse. The Court remanded the matter subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court permitted the assessee to contest denial of input tax credit after allegations of transactions with non-existent suppliers. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Madras High Court directed authorities to defer GST proceedings relating to royalty and seigniorage fees for quarrying minerals until the Supreme Court decides the larger dispute. The petitions were disposed of on terms similar to earlier cases.
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
