The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated on vague and borrowed satisfaction. It held that absence of a live link between information and the assessee’s case invalidated the notice.
The High Court held that GST demands for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan cannot survive once the plan is sanctioned under the IBC. Past statutory dues not forming part of the plan stand extinguished and cannot be enforced.
The High Court stayed a ₹512 crore GST demand after finding prima facie issues with a notice covering multiple financial years. The matter will be heard alongside similar pending cases.
The dispute involved alleged non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment procedure rendering the order non est. The ITAT held that remanding without ruling on section 144B(9) violations is impermissible.
The ITAT corrected its earlier order after noting that the liberty to reopen completed assessments under sections 147/148 was omitted. The ruling clarifies that absence of incriminating material bars search additions but not lawful reassessment.
The Tribunal remanded the MAT issue after noting lack of factual verification on whether reserve withdrawals were credited to the P&L account. Key takeaway: MAT adjustments under section 115JB require strict, evidence-based verification.
The court held that interest is payable when the actual refund is made after the statutory 90-day period, even if the refund order was passed earlier.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could be treated as unexplained despite full documentation. The ITAT held that once loans are repaid and identity and genuineness are proved, section 68 cannot be invoked.
The issue was whether entire bank cash deposits could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal ruled that gross receipts alone cannot be treated as income without examining business facts. Key takeaway: turnover ≠ income under section 69B.
he assessee had already offered the same project income to tax in later years. The Tribunal held that taxing it again earlier would amount to double taxation. Key takeaway: timing disputes cannot justify taxing the same income twice.
