The Kerala High Court held that Input Tax Credit could not be denied where the taxpayer filed the return before the cut-off date prescribed under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of ITC eligibility.
The CESTAT Chennai held that where service tax was not separately recovered from recipients, the gross receipts must be treated as inclusive of tax under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was remanded for fresh quantification.
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed a fresh revocation application after noting that GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns, but revocation was rejected on a different ground. The Court directed reconsideration upon filing pending returns and payment of dues.
The Tribunal observed that taxpayers opting for presumptive taxation are not required to maintain books of account and therefore Section 68 could not be applied merely on the basis of bank statements.
Delhi ITAT held that issues relating to source of donations and cash deposits should generally be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section 12AB.
The ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The ITAT held that once profit is estimated on unaccounted sales, separate additions for wages and operational expenditure cannot be made again under section 69C. The ruling treated such additions as double taxation of the same income stream.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond six years under Section 153C are permissible only where escaped income represented in the form of assets exceeds or is likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakh. Since this statutory condition was not satisfied, the assessments were annulled as time-barred.
The ITAT held that cash deposited by a money transfer agent during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained income when the funds belonged to principal payment service providers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee merely acted as a collection agent and transferred the amounts to the principals.
The Bangalore Bench held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return is directory and not mandatory in circumstances where the audit report becomes available during appeal proceedings. Relief under Sections 11 and 12A was restored.
