A practical two-day GSTAT workshop equips professionals with drafting, presentation, and procedural skills to excel in GST appellate practice.
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that a deficiency memo under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules must be issued within 15 days of filing a refund application. Delay beyond this period entitles taxpayers to interest on the refund.
The Madras High Court stayed recovery for 90 days, allowing Faiz Wahab time to file a stay application after the sale advance refund was taxed as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that refund limitation under Section 27 does not apply to bank guarantees encashed during pending appeals and ordered customs to refund the encashed amount.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
The Tribunal directed estimation of income at 8% under Section 44AD after disallowing expenses due to lack of evidence in Friends Transport Carrier vs ITO.
Delhi High Court held that non-granting of exemption claimed under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act due to delay of 16 days in filing audited report in From 10B not justified since the due to inadvertence error on the part of the auditor / tax professional.
In a case concerning Uzbekistan Airways, the Delhi High Court granted time to file an appeal against a GST demand of ₹35.39 lakh. The Court held that the appeal, once filed within time, must be heard on merits.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to an accused in a ₹19 crore fake ITC case after six months of custody, holding further detention unwarranted.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 69 and 132 of the HGST Act, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhika Agarwal upholding the validity of GST arrest provisions.
