The Kerala High Court declined to continue proceedings after being informed that a final order under Section 130 of the CGST Act had already been passed. The Court held that the petitioner must pursue the remedies available against the final order.
The Kerala High Court set aside an order denying GST input tax credit for delayed return filing. The Court held that returns filed before 30.11.2021 required reconsideration under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.
The assessment was based on four discrepancies: reconciliation issues between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, input tax credit (ITC) mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, declaration of ineligible ITC, and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.
The article explains who can apply for Advance Rulings, the transactions covered, applicable forms, fees, procedures, and appeal rights under the Income-tax Act. The key takeaway is that Advance Rulings provide taxpayers with binding tax clarity on specified transactions, helping reduce disputes and uncertainty while ensuring compliance with tax laws.
The Kerala High Court held that a single show cause notice and adjudication order covering multiple assessment years is not legally sustainable. The impugned order was quashed with liberty to issue separate notices for each year.
The Madras High Court held that a supplier claiming GST exemption must prove that water was supplied through tankers and not as packaged drinking water. The assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Telangana High Court held that an assessment order dated 02.09.2024 for FY 2019-20 was time-barred because the statutory deadline expired on 31.08.2024. The Court ruled that limitation affects jurisdiction and set aside both the assessment and appellate orders.
ITAT Delhi sustained a Section 69A addition on demonetisation-period cash deposits after finding 539 identical cash sale vouchers lacked credibility. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily establish the genuineness of the sales and deposits.
The ITAT Mumbai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had not explained the source of investments in deposits and foreign currency purchases. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
