Landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, High Courts, ITAT and NCLT.
The ITAT Delhi has quashed a Section 148 reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 issued three days beyond the six-year outer limit, and deleted the resulting Rs 27.81 lakh penalty.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has denied a taxpayer’s Section 54B capital gains exemption because the replacement agricultural land was purchased solely in his wife’s name, not jointly with him — a ruling delivered the same day as a contrasting Section 54F decision.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld a taxpayer’s Section 54F capital gains exemption even though the replacement house was purchased jointly with his wife and son — because he had invested the entire capital gain himself.
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a ₹5.76 crore GST Show Cause Notice against HCL Infotech solely because it contained prejudicial remarks against the taxpayer — even after rejecting the taxpayer’s limitation and jurisdiction arguments.
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, has upheld a ₹3.24 lakh Section 129(3) penalty for transporting an excavator without an e-way bill, rejecting the taxpayer’s “no sale, own machinery” defence for lack of evidence — what businesses moving their own equipment need to document.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. clarifies that a transit state’s GST authorities can inspect inter-State goods movement but cannot detain or penalise it under Section 129 absent any tax incidence within that state.
The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Thane, has ruled in CEAT Limited’s favour on a ₹107 crore GST demand relating to tubes and flaps supplied with tyres, holding that Section 74 proceedings do not apply to a genuinely interpretational classification dispute.
Nearly 250 companies walked into the Madras High Court asking essentially the same question: before the GST department can even
Every taxpayer who lived through the July 2017 transition into GST made a choice, whether they realised it at the
The Delhi High Court holds that the Income Tax Department cannot deny credit or refund of excess TDS merely because the return was filed in response to a Section 148 reassessment notice rather than under Section 139.