Courts held that bona fide buyers cannot lose ITC due to supplier non-payment of GST. The key takeaway is protection of genuine taxpayers with proper documentation.
The new regime offers a concessional 22% tax rate for domestic companies. However, key deductions and depreciation benefits are restricted, requiring careful evaluation.
The issue was whether a fresh registration application can be rejected due to prior denial. ITAT held that earlier rejection does not bar reconsideration if conditions are fulfilled.
The tribunal addressed whether delay in filing appeals due to procedural difficulties justified condonation. It held that genuine hardship caused by PAN mismatch and filing issues constituted sufficient cause, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the outcome of reassessment proceedings.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the higher 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot apply to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. It directed application of 30%, reinforcing that amendments apply prospectively.
ITAT Mumbai held that with respect to benchmarking of export transaction, foreign Associated Enterprise [AE] can be chosen as tested party since AE possess the least complex functional analysis. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment not justifiable.
The law consolidates earlier TCS provisions under a new section without changing rates. The key takeaway is the need to update compliance references from April 2026.
The authority held that oxygen supply through installed infrastructure is a composite supply of goods. The key takeaway is that principal supply determines GST classification.
