ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB cannot be rejected merely because the Assessing Officer or Range Head did not recommend approval. The CIT(E) must independently examine the trust’s objects, activities, and legal compliance before arriving at a decision.
The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer for taking a contrary stand in later years after allowing the same deduction on identical facts in an earlier assessment. It held that such inconsistent treatment without distinguishing facts was unsustainable.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to disclose the factual basis of the allegations. The ruling emphasizes the need for a meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken.
The Court held that toll collection rights granted under a BOT concession agreement amounted to consideration for works contract services. As a result, GST liability on the road construction arrangement was upheld.
The High Court held that an earlier CGST show cause notice involving overlapping entities could not be ignored. The State GST notice was directed to remain in abeyance pending adjudication by the CGST Authority.
The High Court directed the Tax Recovery Officer to decide the taxpayer’s pending objection after payment of arrear MV tax. It also restrained authorities from taking coercive recovery measures until the objection is adjudicated.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive because it was made contrary to the DRP’s binding directions. The assessment order was set aside to that extent.
The Tribunal held that a bank guarantee wrongly reported as a contingent liability in the tax audit report could not be added to income when it was not claimed as an expense. It directed deletion of the ₹9.41 lakh addition made on the basis of the reporting error.
The Court examined denial of ITC and penalty imposed for alleged delayed filing of returns. It held that the return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5) and directed reconsideration of the ITC claim.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening contained incorrect figures and unsupported assumptions. It held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to lack of proper application of mind.
