The Tribunal held that once an identical dispute involving the same assessee had been settled by a coordinate Bench, there was no basis to uphold the subsequent demand. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the competent authority to decide a representation alleging fraudulent GST record manipulation and misappropriation of GST amounts. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits and required a reasoned order within one month.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance on general public utility institutions, the Court observed that entities engaged in professional or trade-related activities warrant detailed scrutiny. The case was remanded for re-examination under the revised legal standards.
The Madras High Court held that provisions for bad and doubtful debts must be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JA because of the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, it permitted audit reports for deduction claims to be filed at the appellate stage.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST adjudication order after finding that the authority incorrectly stated that no reply had been filed. The Court held that ignoring the taxpayer’s submissions violated principles of natural justice.
The Karnataka High Court restored GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns, despite the appeal being dismissed on limitation grounds. The Court held that restoration could be granted where the taxpayer is willing to file pending returns and pay taxes, interest, and penalty.
The judgment recognised the contractual priority of GST and other specified payments from the Revenue Collection Account. The Court permitted fixed licence fee deductions while restraining adjustments towards disputed incremental revenue.
The Calcutta High Court held that allegations arising from a financial dispute and strained relations did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court found no prima facie evidence of instigation or intentional provocation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that proportionate interest disallowance cannot be sustained without establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the assessee had sufficient own funds.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment cannot survive when additions are made on issues unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening. The ruling reinforces that the scope of reassessment must remain confined to the original basis of jurisdiction.
