The Tribunal ruled that the Delhi Assessing Officer could not legally assess the taxpayer when jurisdiction continued to remain with Mumbai authorities. The decision underscores that jurisdiction cannot shift without following statutory procedures.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish escaped income of ₹50 lakh or more, a prerequisite for extending the assessment period beyond six years. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory thresholds for extended reassessment.
ITAT Delhi held that protective additions cannot survive when the same income has already been assessed substantively in the hands of the real beneficiaries. The key takeaway is that the Revenue cannot tax identical income twice in different hands.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ignored the statutory threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. The ruling emphasizes that reassessment notices issued contrary to limitation provisions are void in law.
The Madras High Court held that a taxpayer assessed under Section 62 for non-filing of GST returns can still obtain reassessment by subsequently filing the pending returns. The key takeaway is that GST law provides a statutory opportunity to regularize compliance even after a best judgment assessment.
NCLAT held that dismissal for want of prosecution was unjustified where multiple adjournments were caused by the Tribunal due to paucity of time and technical issues. The ruling emphasizes that litigants should not be penalized when delays are not entirely attributable to them.
The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both provisions operate in distinct legal spheres. Taxpayers must challenge factual findings through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.
ITAT found that the Assessing Officer incorrectly treated consignment transactions as the assessees turnover based solely on cess payments. The ruling emphasizes that commission agents should be taxed on commission income and not on consignors turnover.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice and adjudication order, holding that the petitioner had an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that an Assessing Officer’s quasi-judicial decision cannot attract disciplinary action merely because another view was possible. Absence of mala fides or lack of integrity defeated the misconduct charge.
