The case examined whether vague information justified reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal ruled that absence of concrete material and nexus to escapement makes reopening without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The addition was struck down as income was taxed before execution of sale deeds. Advances shown as liabilities were correctly offered to tax only when ownership passed to buyers.
Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied without examining crucial evidence. The tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and legal issues.
Whether interest can be demanded without being specified in the show cause notice. Ruling & Takeaway: The Court held that interest not quantified in the notice cannot be added later, reaffirming strict compliance with Section 75(7).
Income earned from sanitation, gardening, and waste management contracts was treated as charitable. The tribunal held such receipts furthered environmental objects under Section 2(15).
Cash deposits during demonetisation were treated as unexplained as no genuine business need for holding large idle cash was shown. The tribunal upheld the Section 68 addition, stressing proof of necessity and cash retention.
While following binding High Court precedent on limitation, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to revive the matter depending on the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that directions to modify tax software had no nexus with the individual dispute. Relief granted to the assessee under Section 205 was left undisturbed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn after permitting the taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal. The ruling reinforces that GST disputes should follow the appeal route under Section 107.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable where the GST Act provides a complete appellate framework. The petitioner was relegated to pursue the remedy under Section 107.
