The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
Relying on apex court precedents, the High Court ruled that ordinarily bail should be granted in CGST cases involving documentary evidence and limited punishment.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54F must be computed with reference to actual sale consideration received, not the deemed value under Section 50C. The matter was remanded for recomputation of LTCG accordingly.
The Court upheld that sugar, edible oil and vanaspati fall within Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Marketing Act. Market fees can be levied if procurement occurs within the notified market area.
Once the Central Government notified the Faceless Scheme for reassessment (effective March 29, 2022), the JAO was effectively divested of the power to issue notices under Section 148. The issuance of a notice by a JAO instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was a jurisdictional error that could not be cured.
PCIT s revision under section 263 against assessee was upheld holding that AO did not properly verify the very low Section 14A disallowance despite huge exempt income and also ignored INSIGHT portal inputs about alleged accommodation entries.
The Appellate Authority held that it cannot condone delay beyond the 30-day extended period prescribed under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act. As the appeal was filed 250 days after communication of the AAR order, it was dismissed without examining merits.
The Tribunal held that once satisfaction is recorded under Section 153C, assessment for covered years must proceed strictly under that provision. Framing assessment under Section 143(3) was declared jurisdictionally invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
