GSTAT held that failure to pass on additional Input Tax Credit benefits to eligible homebuyers violated Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal ordered refund of profiteered amounts with GST, interest and penalty.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for room rent, medical tests, medicines, and consumables were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The CCI held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, consumables, room rent, and diagnostic services were not substantiated. The Commission found that patients could assess treatment costs beforehand and no separate aftermarket was established.
The Supreme Court refused relief to borrowers who defaulted from the very first instalment after availing an ₹8.09 crore loan. The Court held that an offer to repay only the principal amount after six years was too little too late.
The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The Court ruled that exclusion of natural heirs alone is not a suspicious circumstance when the Will is properly proved.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from mandatory reserve fund deposits and co-operative bank accounts qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. It observed that temporarily parking surplus funds does not amount to carrying on a separate investment activity.
SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue share. Court noted that such income could not be taxed again in member’s hands.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the holding period for capital gains purposes began from the date of full payment and transfer of possession under the agreement to sell, not the later registration date. The property was therefore treated as a long-term capital asset.
The Madras High Court held that the option under Section 36(1)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act belongs exclusively to the assessee and cannot be substituted by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed recomputation of taxable income after rejecting the Department’s restrictive interpretation.
The Karnataka High Court directed release of goods and conveyance after noting that the petitioner had already complied with the appellate authority’s order imposing 200% tax penalty under Section 129(1)(a). The Court required an indemnity bond pending conclusion of revisional proceedings.
