Karnataka High Court held that works contract entered with State and other Government agencies needs to calculate works executed Pre-GST under KVAT regime and Post-GST. Thus, reimbursement/ refund is to be granted for differential tax liability taking into account Pre-GST and Post-GST tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the ₹2.5 Cr flat investment was fully explained through agreement details and a DHFL housing loan, leaving no basis for an addition. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remanded for fresh examination since the foundation for concealment no longer survived.
Telangana High Court struck down service-tax provision on club-member transactions, holding that doctrine of mutuality and Supreme Court’s Calcutta Club judgment render such levies invalid.
The assessee’s plea that delayed PF/ESI deduction was a debatable issue was rejected because Checkmate had settled the law retrospectively. The key takeaway is that once the Supreme Court clarifies the law, CPC may apply it through 143(1)(a) adjustments based on audit disclosures.
The Court restored a time-barred appeal after noting BSNL’s voluntary payment of differential duty. The ruling permits the case to be heard on merits despite a 652-day delay.
Covers the Tribunal’s ruling upholding most TPO-selected comparables while excluding product-owning entities, clarifying how functional similarity drives benchmarking in software distribution.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, holding that allegations of fraudulent ITC require factual scrutiny through the appellate process. The petitioner was directed to pursue an appeal under Section 107.
The Tribunal found no evidence of concealment since the assessee had transparently disclosed impairment, CENVAT credit treatment, and revenue recognition. It ruled that Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked merely because the AO made additions.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCNs and orders are legally valid when authenticated using digital keys, even without visible signatures, and that statutory appeal under Section 107 is appropriate remedy.
ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) wrongly treated the DVO’s report as binding and failed to independently scrutinize comparables, methodology, and objections. Key takeaway: the first appellate authority must evaluate the DVO’s report on merits and issue a speaking order.
