Madras High Court held that dormant partner cannot be made vicariously liable for benami transaction especially since even the necessary averment to invoke vicarious liability is absent in the complaint. Accordingly, order set aside to that extent.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 9(2) of the CST Act doesn’t create statutory charge on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, unpaid CST dues are unsecured debt. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Setting aside the lower authorities orders, the Tribunal ruled that reliance on amalgamation-related precedents was misplaced. It reaffirmed that goodwill from a slump sale is depreciable when not hit by statutory restrictions.
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
The tribunal accepted an area-based methodology for computing profiteering in a housing project, rejecting turnover-linked calculations. The ruling confirms that uniform per-square-foot benefit must be passed on to all eligible buyers.
A slight increase in post-GST ITC was held to amount to profiteering when not passed on. The tribunal directed refund of the quantified benefit with interest to eligible buyers.
The Court held that a final GST adjudication order passed within three months of the show cause notice violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Orders issued without granting the statutory minimum response period were declared unsustainable.
CESTAT held that local transportation of goods, even with incidental loading, cannot be taxed as cargo handling when contracts are divisible. The service tax demand and penalty were therefore set aside.
