ITAT Bangalore held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where approval under Section 151 was granted mechanically. The sanction was based on the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine the profiteering computation after questions were raised about ignored cost increases, negative values, and supply channel considerations.
GSTAT concluded that elimination of entertainment tax and other levies reduced the effective tax incidence, requiring suppliers to pass on the benefit to subscribers.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of airlines jointly fixing cancellation charges were unsupported by evidence of any agreement or concerted action. As a result, no violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act was established and the complaint was dismissed.
The Competition Commission of India held that exclusive agreements between an online movie ticketing platform and cinemas did not lead to market foreclosure. Despite dominance in the online ticketing market, the Commission found no evidence of denial of market access to competitors.
The Bombay High Court set aside a settlement order where the department adjusted a refund of one tax period against dues of another under the MVAT Amnesty Scheme.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
A show cause notice was issued proposing reclassification, recovery of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, and imposition of penalties. Additional Director General confirmed the demand, ordered recovery of duty with interest, and imposed penalties including a penalty on Manager of the appellant company. Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeals.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed after DRP directions is still subject to revision under Section 263. It held that there is no statutory bar preventing the Principal Commissioner from revising such orders.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
