The Delhi High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue decided issues. The Revenue failed to show any apparent error in the earlier direction to process returns.
The Tribunal held that IGST demand based on alleged breach of pre-import condition was unsustainable where export obligations were fulfilled and EODCs were issued. Acceptance of EODCs and bond cancellation closed the exemption compliance.
The Court stayed the adjudication order where similar GST classification issues were already pending. Interim relief was granted until final disposal of the petition.
Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Since assessee failed to meet the mandatory eligibility conditions under Clause 4.4(ii) read with Annexure V of the RFP due to non-submission of LoAs/Work Experience Certificates. The rejection of assessee’s bid by NSIC was held to be lawful, justified, and […]
V. K. Sharma Vs JVG Finance Limited (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Appellant had failed to establish locus standi to challenge orders relating to asset realisation in liquidation and the material on record clearly demonstrated that liabilities of the company far exceeded available funds, making sale of assets necessary. Held: The company in liquidation (JVG Group) […]
The issue concerned valuation of royalty for bundled services. ITAT held that faulty comparables vitiated the CUP analysis and ordered fresh benchmarking.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked during a pending appeal. ITAT held that PCIT lacks jurisdiction once the matter is before CIT(A).
The issue was whether reassessment initiated by the Jurisdictional AO was valid. The Tribunal held the notice invalid as it violated mandatory faceless assessment procedures, rendering the reassessment void.
The tribunal held that where the Assessing Officer conducted exhaustive enquiries and applied his mind in a 153C assessment, revision under section 263 is invalid. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening a concluded assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 28 is part of compensation and not taxable as other income. A reopening based on such misinterpretation was quashed for lack of valid belief.
