The Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning the issuance of GST notices and proceedings related to a highway project under the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) model. It upheld the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, dismissed the writ petition, and granted assessee liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, ensuring that the matter could be examined on its merits by the appellate authorities.
A Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) could not avoid a CoC-approved resolution plan by claiming that the Letter of Intent (LoI) was conditional. The court observed that merely stating in the LoI that the resolution plan would be subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the NCLT did not make the LoI conditional.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reassessment beyond three years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry as required under Section 149(1)(b). The ruling underscores the mandatory jurisdictional conditions for reopening assessments.
Delhi ITAT held that share premium received by a subsidiary from its holding company could not be taxed under Section 56(2)(viib). The ruling emphasizes that the anti-abuse provision cannot be extended to genuine intra-group capital infusions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the enhanced 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot be imposed on income relating to FY 2016-17. The Court emphasized that the amendment expressly took effect from 01.04.2017 and operates prospectively.
The Supreme Court held that an accused cannot be denied copies of documents forming part of the chargesheet merely because prosecution is under the Official Secrets Act. The Court balanced fair trial rights and national security by allowing access subject to strict confidentiality restrictions.
Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
NCLAT held that the order appointing the Resolution Professional under Section 97 was obtained on the basis of misrepresented and non-existent jurisdictional facts relating to the alleged personal guarantee. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside as void ab initio.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines under Section 107 of the CGST Act. A GST appeal filed within the extended condonable period cannot be dismissed as time-barred without proper consideration.
The Tribunal held that procurement services provided by a foreign group entity were substantive services rendered on its own account and not intermediary services. As a result, the transaction qualified as import of services and the refund claim was rejected.
