The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after the deadline to be invalid.
The Court found that the authority failed to follow mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3) before rejecting the refund. It held that absence of hearing and improper notice rendered the order invalid.
Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GST purpose. However, since there was no suppression of fact invocation of extended period denied.
ITAT Delhi held that companies owning and operating channels cannot be compared with distribution company for the purpose of transfer pricing. Accordingly, directs TPO to exclude such comparables for benchmarking distribution segment and determination of ALP.
The Court examined whether employees could be penalised under Section 122(1A) for company-level GST violations. It held that only “taxable persons” fall within the scope of the provision, excluding employees without independent registration.
The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the processing stage, resulting in relief to the assessee. The ruling clarifies procedural boundaries.
The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction. The decision highlights the mandatory requirement of proper authentication.
The case examined whether property registered in trustees’ names violated Section 13(1)(c). The Tribunal held no violation as no benefit accrued to trustees, allowing exemption under Section 11.
The case examined whether a lower TDS certificate applies prospectively or for the full year. The Court held it applies to the entire assessment year, negating default and interest liability.
CESTAT Delhi held that statements recorded during investigation cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D—examination before adjudicating authority and admissibility determination—is followed.
