The Delhi High Court held that personal-use disallowance principles applicable to individuals cannot automatically apply to companies. The Tribunal’s order sustaining disallowance of one-sixth of car and telephone expenses was set aside.
The case involved simultaneous proceedings by Central and State GST authorities concerning the same tax period and subject matter. The High Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that only one authority continues adjudication in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Allahabad High Court held that the impugned notice merely proposed a cess demand and did not contain a final determination. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies by filing objections before the authority.
The Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over Section 16(4). Since the returns were filed before the prescribed cut-off date, the ITC denial was set aside.
The High Court upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 6% of alleged bogus purchases, holding that similar issues involving the same accommodation entry group had already been decided in earlier cases.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that no under-reporting of income existed where the income declared in the return filed under Section 148 was accepted without any addition. The penalty under Section 270A was deleted.
The Madras High Court held that a Section 74 order could remain in abeyance where a second appeal could not be filed due to a GST portal glitch. The Court directed the appeal to be taken on file and left the issue of Section 74 applicability open.
The dispute concerned denial of 67% abatement on construction and works contract services involving supply of materials. CESTAT held that substantive tax benefits cannot be refused solely due to failure to claim them in ST-3 returns. The Service Tax demand and related penalty were consequently set aside.
The dispute concerned whether importers lose their right to contest enhanced valuation after submitting consent letters during customs clearance. CESTAT held that written acceptance does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment.
The Delhi High Court held that RTI replies showing tax return filings and bank entries did not establish that specific payments were accounted for in taxable income. As a result, no ground existed to review the earlier dismissal of the writ petition.
