The Orissa High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4) could not be rejected as time-barred. The ruling emphasises proper computation of limitation by excluding the date of communication of the order.
The Court held that where a purchasing dealer has complied with statutory requirements and acted in good faith, ITC cannot be denied solely because the supplier failed to discharge tax obligations. The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were therefore quashed.
ITAT Delhi remitted matters relating to sections 12AB and 80G after finding that the impugned orders did not clearly establish whether the assessee had filed replies or complied with notices. The cases were sent back for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from surplus funds deposited with banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Prudent deployment of business funds does not alter the nature of the income.
ITAT Delhi held that professional fees claimed for raising working capital limits could not be fully allowed as the taxpayer failed to establish their business relevance. However, considering the circumstances, only 50% of the expenditure was disallowed.
The ITAT Dehradun held that cash turnover in a petrol pump business during demonetisation could not be disregarded entirely. Considering the facts of the case, it reduced the addition under Section 68 to a lump sum of Rs.5 lakh.
The ITAT Dehradun remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC after observing that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
CESTAT Delhi held that transportation and distribution of newspapers by road constituted services covered under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that incidental loading and unloading activities did not alter the essential character of the service.
ITAT Surat held that additions relating to credit card payments and cash deposits could not be sustained when the assessee had explained them through sales of Amway products and commission income. The Tribunal found that these details had been overlooked by the tax authorities.
The ITAT Ranchi held that additions for unsecured loans could not survive in the lender’s hands when the recipient company had already disclosed the entire amount as income. The Revenue’s inability to rebut this factual finding led to dismissal of the appeals.
