When an entity served both its members and the public, the dominant object test applies. If the regulatory functions lead to borrower protection and financial stability for low-income groups, the GPU status was maintainable.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
The court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and granted bail after noting that the investigation had been completed. The ruling highlights that continued custody is not necessary once key investigative steps are over.
ITAT held that share capital addition cannot be sustained where identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of investors are supported by documents. The Tribunal found no defect in CIT(A)’s order deleting most of the addition.
The Tribunal ruled that an unregistered agreement does not invalidate exemption if possession is taken and payment is made. The term purchase under Section 54 was interpreted broadly.
The Tribunal held that describing goods as painted steel sheets instead of painted galvanised steel sheets was not mis-declaration. It ruled that incomplete description does not justify confiscation or penalties.
The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication must remain within the allegations contained in the notice. It found that introducing new evidence during adjudication amounted to substituting the original grounds.
The Tribunal held that allegations of siphoning ₹30 lakh were not supported by any evidence tracing funds to the respondent. Mere non-reflection in books was found insufficient to establish fraud. The ruling clarifies that concrete proof of diversion and intent is required under Section 66(1).
