Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 impermissible since tax already paid voluntarily and there was no tax liability to be paid at the time of issuance of show cause notice. Accordingly, notice quashed.
Lenders had confirmed loans in response to statutory notices, yet additions were made. The Tribunal upheld deletion by CIT(A), stressing the importance of uncontroverted confirmations. The ruling reinforces evidentiary discipline in Section 68 cases.
NCLAT Delhi held that resignation from directorship of Corporate Debtor not a sufficient ground leading to revocation of his personal guarantee. Accordingly, application u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rightly admitted for failure of repayment in respect of their guarantee obligation.
The Tribunal held that TCS credit cannot be denied when tax was collected from the assessee, even if the collector failed to deposit it.
The High Court declined to entertain a writ challenging a GST order, holding that no exceptional case was made out to bypass the appellate remedy. The ruling reiterates the principle of exhausting statutory appeals before invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that a mere disallowance of depreciation, with full disclosure of facts, does not attract penalty under Section 270A.
Revenue counted limitation from the third-party search date, while the assessee argued it should start from document handover. ITAT Delhi agreed, holding the assessment outside the six-year period, thereby voiding it.
The Tribunal found that satisfaction under Section 153C was recorded long after the search and document transfer. Applying binding judicial precedent, ITAT ruled that the assessment was barred by limitation and therefore null and void.
The issue was whether accumulated income could be taxed merely because it was not spent exactly for the purpose stated in Form-10. ITAT Delhi held that as long as funds are applied toward charitable educational objects, technical lapses or non-intimation to the AO cannot defeat exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal found that alleged cash payments lacked any agreement, bank trails, or confirmation from recipients, making the addition legally untenable. ITAT emphasized adherence to evidentiary standards under Section 65B and deleted the addition entirely.
