The case examined prolonged pendency of an income tax appeal. The court directed the assessee to file a reply within two weeks and allowed disposal even without it if non-compliance continues.
The Tribunal held that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot exceed the amount certified by DSIR after the 2016 amendment, leading to disallowance of excess R&D claims.
The Court held that two assessment orders for the same discrepancies and tax period cannot coexist. It quashed one order and allowed proceedings under the other to continue.
The court held that tax liability was fixed at the time of auction completion, prior to GST implementation. Delayed payment could not shift the applicable tax regime.
The court held that expenditure on replacement of independent machinery cannot be treated as revenue when it results in a new asset or advantage. It set aside the Tribunal’s order for relying on a precedent later overturned by the Supreme Court and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The constitutional validity of Section 232B and the proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was upheld while setting aside specific retrospective tax notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation(KMC) to a property owner as they neither suffer from manifest arbitrariness nor violate Articles 14, 19 or 300A.
Paragraph 27AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme could not be automatically imposed on establishments exempted under Section 17 of the EPF Act unless the Appropriate Government issued a specific official notification modifying the conditions of such exemption.
Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax and accordingly, set aside the entire demand as time barred.
The ruling held that concessional GST rate applies only if bags qualify as biodegradable under the notification. It clarified that authorities cannot determine biodegradability and classification depends on material.
The issue was whether online coaching qualifies as OIDAR services. The ruling held it does not, as significant human involvement makes it commercial training, taxable under CGST and SGST.
