The Bombay High Court stayed the entire tax demand after finding that authorities taxed gross receipts without deducting expenditure. The ruling reiterates that only real income can be brought to tax.
The ITAT held that taxing only TDS credit, while leaving the underlying undisclosed commission untaxed, is a patent error. Section 263 revision was rightly invoked to protect revenue.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries into goodwill depreciation. A plausible view taken after scrutiny cannot be branded as erroneous.
ITAT held that arm’s length price for electricity supplied to related entities must be benchmarked against the gross tariff charged by the State Electricity Authority. Excluding mandatory charges distorts comparability and is impermissible.
The court examined whether pre-deposit under Section 112 could be enforced when the GST Tribunal was not yet functional. It held that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit still applies and upheld the interim direction.
The court examined whether delay in filing a revised return caused by an audit reporting mistake and COVID-19 disruption should be condoned. It held that the explanation was bona fide and directed authorities to process the revised return afresh.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked to deny 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits. The ITAT held that such revision is invalid when the AO has taken a legally settled and permissible view.
The case examined whether ITC can be blocked beyond the balance available in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A. The court held that such negative blocking is impermissible and restricted the blockage to the actual ledger balance.
The High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. In the absence of an error apparent on record, the review petition was dismissed.
The court examined whether a GST demand could exceed the amount proposed in a show-cause notice. It held that enhancement of demand violates Section 75(7) and set aside the assessment and appellate orders.
