The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek stay of recovery by complying with CBIC circular requirements. It held that filing an undertaking and making pre-deposit enables protection from recovery. The key takeaway is that statutory conditions must be fulfilled to avail recovery relief.
The case addressed whether a 247-day delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to pandemic-related disruptions. The Court condoned the delay citing exceptional circumstances and directed adjudication on merits.
The case examined denial of credit on GTA services for outward transportation. The Tribunal held that FOR delivery terms made the buyer’s premises the place of removal, allowing credit.
The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The Tribunal allowed concessional duty on imported goods after noting that earlier decisions in identical matters had already settled the issue. It held that reliance on a set-aside order was unsustainable. The key takeaway is that binding precedents must be followed, and overturned orders cannot be relied upon.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
The Court set aside a show cause notice issued for multiple years in a single proceeding. It held that the GST law requires separate assessment for each financial year. The key takeaway is that consolidation of tax periods is not permissible under Section 74.
The article explains how taxation differs based on classification under Sections 115BBH and 43(5). This distinction affects tax rates, deductions, and loss treatment.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer wrongly compared dissimilar email marketing services to determine excess payment. The ruling clarifies that only comparable services can be used for arm’s length evaluation, leading to deletion of the addition.
