The Tribunal held that one-time lease premium and salami for commercial units cannot be taxed as renting services because the transaction involved transfer of substantial property rights and construction service, not periodic rent. Car-parking fees were also found non-taxable under renting. The ruling provides key clarity for real estate developers on classification and abatement eligibility.
The Orissa High Court set aside a GST order of Rs.17.89 lakh after the tax periods in the adjudication did not match the show-cause notice, remitting the matter for fresh computation.
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 Mumbai dismissed a tax appeal due to a 1,370-day delay, ruling that reliance on a tax consultant’s advice does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. Case underscores strict adherence to limitation rules in tax proceedings.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid. It ruled that mandatory faceless procedures apply even in international taxation matters.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a co-purchaser of property is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA if their individual share is below ₹50 lakh, even if total consideration exceeds the limit. The Tribunal quashed both AO and CIT(A) orders.
ITAT ruled that the CIT (Exemption) had no power to cancel registration under Section 12AB(4) for violations that occurred before April 2022, rendering the action void.
ITAT ruled that invoking the Black Money Act for AY 2022–23 on income earned in FY 2015–16 was without jurisdiction, rendering the entire assessment invalid.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that once the Assessing Officer is aware of a merger, assessment in the name of the amalgamating company is invalid and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the notice failed to specify whether it targeted concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The ruling highlights the need for clarity in issuing tax penalties.
