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.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
Karnataka High Court held that bona fide error made while filing return in Form GSTR3B are allowed to be corrected. Further, it is held that such bona fide errors cannot be sole ground for initiating proceedings u/s. 73 of the GST Act.
The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Court ruled that expenses on replantation and upkeep are revenue in nature and eligible for deduction. It followed the Full Bench decision which overruled the earlier restrictive interpretation.
HC held that Section 28 of Customs Act does not mandate communication of an extension order for adjudication. Delayed adjudication was upheld, leaving importer to pursue statutory appeal.
