The Tribunal examined whether an increase in loans was due to fresh borrowing or reclassification. It remanded the matter for verification, holding that no addition is warranted if no new funds were received.
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 issue was multiple show cause notices issued by different authorities. The notification appoints a single adjudicating authority to ensure uniform and efficient adjudication.
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.
GSTN clarified that system-calculated interest for February 2026 was incorrectly reflected in March returns due to a technical issue. Taxpayers must recompute and update the correct interest using the portal feature.
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.
