The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reassessment was justified as the original order contained no reference to the deduction claim. Mere filing of computation does not bar reopening.
The Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the assessing officer failed to verify whether cash deposits were used to create a fixed deposit. The case was remanded for fresh consideration after proper examination.
The High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act overrides the limitation under Section 16(4) if returns are filed before the specified cut-off date. The assessment denying ITC was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside an order rejecting release of seized jewellery after finding it was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. The application was directed to be reconsidered by the proper assessing authority.
The issue was whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss recorded at year-end was notional and disallowable. The Tribunal upheld its allowability, holding that losses accounted under consistent mercantile practice and accounting standards are deductible.
The issue was whether the entire Section 80JJAA deduction could be rejected when some employees failed the 240-day condition. The Tribunal held that only ineligible employees’ costs can be disallowed, not the whole claim.
The Court held that refund claims filed within statutory limitation cannot be rejected merely due to filing after a cut-off date, striking down the impugned circular and directing refund processing.
The Tribunal examined whether agricultural land qualified as a non-capital asset and upheld taxation after finding it within the prescribed municipal distance. The ruling reiterates that physical verification and reliable evidence prevail over unsupported certificates.
The High Court stayed a GST demand where the assessee alleged denial of a personal hearing under Section 75(4). The case turns on whether service through the portal sufficed after registration cancellation.
The court set aside tax and penalty proceedings initiated solely because the supplier’s GST registration was earlier cancelled. It held that once the registration was restored and transactions were supported by evidence, Section 74 action could not survive.
