TAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the property was actually purchased from a different company than the one referred to in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal found absence of any live nexus between the assessee and the alleged incriminating material.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration could not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47). The Court held that no capital gains tax liability arose for the relevant assessment year.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be directly added while computing book profits under Section 115JB. Matter was remanded for fresh computation following the Vireet Investment ruling.
The Court granted interim protection against coercive recovery proceedings after the petitioner argued that the revisional order was passed beyond the three-year statutory limitation period under the CGST Act.
The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenue appeals challenging banks’ eligibility for CENVAT credit on service tax paid for deposit insurance premium. The Court held that the issue already stood concluded by earlier Kerala and Bombay High Court rulings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
The Supreme Court held that once final GST assessment orders had been passed, the assessee must pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court allowed the issue of missing seized files to be raised before the appellate authority.
Gauhati High Court ruled that electricity regulatory functions and adjudicatory powers form part of a single statutory framework and cannot be split for taxation purposes. The Court held that attempts to classify such functions as support services were unsustainable.
Court restrained the department from taking coercive steps until the petitioner filed the statutory appeal. The order was passed in a case involving challenge to a GST adjudication order.
