The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether CBDT monetary limits barred the revenue appeal. The Court held that organised tax evasion and accommodation entry cases are carved out exceptions, defeating the low tax effect argument.
The High Court held that further recovery should be halted where a rectification application against a GST order is pending and substantial tax has already been recovered. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide rectification within a fixed timeframe.
The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider material documents placed on record while rejecting a GST appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after proper evaluation of evidence.
The High Court held that delay caused by illness of a partner should have been condoned where the fact was not disputed. The appellate authority’s dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation alone was set aside.
The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
The Delhi High Court held that a withholding tax certificate cannot stand once the ITAT sets aside the finding of a dependent agent PE. Since the Revenue relied solely on quashed assessment orders, the 8.75% TDS was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that expiry of 120 days under Section 132B does not trigger automatic release of seized assets. The only consequence of delay is interest liability, reaffirming that AO’s satisfaction is essential.
The ITAT held that revision is invalid when invoked merely to re-examine an issue already scrutinised by the Assessing Officer.
NCLAT Chennai held that recall application under rule 11 of the NCLT Rules cannot be utilised as a camouflage to seek review of an order which has been passed on merits. Thus, company appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
