The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. A fresh adjudication on merits was directed.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 65 audit proceedings can be initiated even after GST registration is cancelled if the audit pertains to a period when the taxpayer was registered. Cancellation of registration does not extinguish statutory obligations relating to past tax periods.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only Rs. 2,03,816, below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold. The reassessment and consequential additions were quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because approval under Section 151 was obtained from an authority not competent under the amended law. The notice under Section 148 was declared void.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued beyond three years where the alleged escaped income is less than ₹50 lakh. The reassessment proceedings were therefore declared invalid and quashed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid where the alleged escaped income was less than ₹50 lakh. The consequential assessment order was quashed.
The Amritsar ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the officer completing the assessment had not issued the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on a different interpretation of the same material examined during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion and could not justify reopening.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Service Tax could not be recovered again from the recipient under RCM when the transporter had already collected and deposited the tax. The demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
