The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice cannot be treated as valid merely because it carried an earlier date when it was actually signed and served after limitation expired. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The Court permitted the petitioner to produce a clearer bill of lading in support of its IGST refund claim on ocean freight. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the appeal on merits.
The Allahabad High Court set aside appellate orders dismissing GST appeals as time-barred after holding that the Revenue failed to establish actual communication of orders. The Court ruled that limitation must be computed from the date of effective communication disclosed by the assessee unless rebutted with evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department was liable to compensate an assessee for delayed release of seized KVPs and IVPs after settlement dues were paid. The Court awarded interest for the delay period and additional simple interest for continued non-payment.
The Chennai ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after finding that identical issues had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed its previous ruling on software service payments.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that demonetisation-related cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained money merely on suspicion when sales are properly recorded in books. The Tribunal upheld deletion of ₹2.35 crore addition due to absence of defects in evidence.
NCLT observed that the corporate debtor had acknowledged outstanding balances and never denied receipt of loan disbursements. These records were held sufficient to establish debt and default under Section 7 of the IBC.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a consolidated GST show cause notice for multiple financial years, holding that the taxpayer had an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court kept all issues relating to limitation and jurisdiction open for the appellate authority.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the issue of alleged unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer after observing that adequate opportunity was not granted before lower authorities. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice required fresh examination of the assessee’s records.
The ITAT Nagpur held that receipts reflected in Form 26AS cannot automatically be treated as taxable turnover without verification and reconciliation with books of account and service tax records. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination and cross-verification.
