The issue involved large unsecured loans without full supporting evidence. ITAT held that identity and creditworthiness were not properly established and sent the matter back for fresh verification.
The case examined whether one officer can perform dual roles in GST proceedings. The court held that such overlap violates natural justice and set aside the appellate order.
The issue involved restriction of TDS credit due to mismatch between Form 26AS and return. ITAT held that such adjustments require verification and cannot be made under Section 143(1).
The case examined validity of a show cause notice covering several years. The court held that GST law requires year-wise assessment, making such consolidated notices invalid.
The Court held that the secured creditor’s rights were limited to project receivables and did not extend to management or contractual control. It ruled that the creditor could not challenge termination of the contract. The decision clarifies limits of secured creditor rights under IBC and SARFAESI.
The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such conduct indicated pre-determined outcomes and violated competition law.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The Tribunal addressed denial of leave encashment exemption restricted to ₹3 lakh. It held that the revised CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies, allowing full exemption within the threshold.
The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal held that without independent verification, such demands are unsustainable and must be set aside.
The issue was whether multiple medical bills constituted a single transaction under Section 269ST. The Tribunal held that separately billed services are independent transactions, so penalty was not justified.
