The GSTAT Committee has recommended sweeping changes to the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 to simplify appeal filing and reduce technical objections. The proposals aim to enhance accessibility, procedural flexibility, and efficiency in GST litigation.
Mumbai ITAT held that the Revenue could not attribute the entire execution revenue from cross-border deals to the Indian PE without adequate evidence. The Tribunal upheld revenue sharing based on actual functions performed by overseas offices.
Mumbai ITAT held that maintenance charges and other collections received exclusively from members of a co-operative society are exempt under the doctrine of mutuality. Surplus generated from such receipts does not constitute taxable income.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the entire property investment is supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that conjectures cannot substitute proof.
GSTAT Mumbai Bench has officially commenced functioning, making it mandatory for taxpayers within its jurisdiction to file appeals before the Tribunal. The notice outlines filing procedures, scrutiny requirements, and applicable procedural rules.
ROC Kolkata held that filing Form AOC-4 XBRL with an incorrect AGM date amounted to a contravention of Rule 8(3). The order clarifies that certifying signatories are responsible for the accuracy of statutory e-forms and attachments.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its officers for three separate compliance failures linked to a private placement of shares. The order highlights that errors in disclosures, e-forms, and attachments can attract penalties under Section 450.
ROC Kolkata held that mentioning an incorrect AGM due date in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite admitting the mistake as inadvertent.
ROC Pune held that possession of more than one Director Identification Number constitutes a violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the absence of mala fide intent, penalty under Section 159 was imposed for the default.
ROC Kolkata held that incorrect disclosure of AGM and AGM due dates in Form AOC-4 constituted a violation of Rule 8(3). The company and certifying director were penalised despite describing the error as a clerical mistake.
