Relying on binding precedent, the Court issued directions to resolve overlapping GST inquiries. It stressed adherence to structured coordination mechanisms between authorities.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest cannot be finalized when the validity of underlying loans is still under appeal. It remanded the matter for reconsideration after the earlier year’s decision.
The decision held that imports conducted through State Trading Enterprises are valid even where the importer is not the direct importer. It emphasized compliance with policy structure rather than form.
The Court held that serious medical conditions justified delay in filing a revised return. It directed reopening of the ITBA portal to enable compliance while allowing scrutiny on merits.
Tribunal rules that Section 14A disallowance must be limited to investments yielding exempt income and orders recomputation under Rule 8D. It also allows ESOP expenses as a valid business deduction under Section 37(1), treating them as an ascertained liability and not a notional or capital expense.
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments for architectural services were not FTS since no technical knowledge was made available. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The issue was whether utilisation of earlier accumulated income qualifies for fresh exemption. The Tribunal held it amounts to double deduction as exemption was already claimed earlier.
The Court examined whether an FIR without prior sanction under GST law is sustainable. It allowed investigation but restrained arrest and barred filing of the charge sheet pending further hearing.
The issue was mis-declaration of quantity, value, and classification of imported goods. The Tribunal upheld reassessment and duty demand as the importer admitted discrepancies.
