GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
The Tribunal directed DGAP to re-examine calculation issues after the Respondent challenged the method of computing profiteering. Questions on service ITC deduction and price comparison require fresh scrutiny.
The Court held that ITC on charges related to transfer of leasehold rights does not fall within blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d). As no fraud or suppression was shown, invocation of Section 74 was without jurisdiction and the notice was quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition in present case would be the FMV of the flats which the assessee has acquired in exchange of surrender of tenancy right to the developer. Accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute cost of acquisition.
Supreme Court held that attachment orders under the Benami Act cannot be challenged before NCLT under IBC, as the Act provides an exclusive adjudicatory mechanism. Insolvency tribunals cannot review sovereign confiscation proceedings.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding it was based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. The ruling reinforces that Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of demand on new or different grounds without prior notice.
The Calcutta High Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely due to disagreement with the Assessing Officers view. Since the AO conducted proper inquiry and followed CBDT instructions, revision was quashed and LTCG treatment on unlisted shares was upheld.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail in a GST ITC fraud case, noting that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed. Continued custody was held unnecessary at this stage.
The Court held that an appeal filed nearly three years after the original order was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Uploading the order on the GST portal was deemed valid service.
