Gujarat High Court held that non-filing of Income Tax Return as ignorant about deduction of TDS on account of land acquisition reasonable. Accordingly, delay condoned and petitioner allowed the file the income tax return of the relevant year.
Patna High Court held that petition against order rejecting GST refund cannot be entertained in view of available statutory remedy under section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
An Excel sheet recovered from the email account of assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C as Section 138C applies only when the document was printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
Since common input services were used for both taxable output and trading, assessee was required to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading along with interest. Penalty under Rule 15(3) to be confined to proportionate irregular credit finally determined.
The ITAT Ahmedabad sent back a case involving an addition of Rs.1.17 crore for unexplained cash deposits to the AO. The remand was necessary because the CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order without verifying the evidence submitted by the assessee.
Tribunal held that filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, not a mandatory condition for exemption under Section 11, allowing relief to a charitable trust despite a four-day delay in uploading audit report.
Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not supply of service, thereby exempting it from GST liability.
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the allowance of investment deduction under Section 32A for AY 1984-85 and 1985-86. The court noted the tax effect was below the CBDT’s monetary limit and the appellant failed to serve the respondents for years.
The Delhi High Court overturned a ₹19.79 lakh ex-parte GST assessment order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case on merits. The ruling mandates that the Petitioner deposit the tax amount of ₹10.22 lakh and file a reply by the specified deadline.
ITAT ruled that the appeal dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating merits violated natural justice. The Tribunal directed a fresh review, emphasizing that taxing gross receipts without allowing legitimate expenditure is not in accordance with law.
