The Allahabad High Court held that a taxpayer cannot effectively respond to a show cause notice without access to the documents relied upon by the department. The order under Section 74 was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Kerala High Court quashed an order denying input tax credit after finding that the taxpayer had filed returns before the cut-off date prescribed under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of ITC eligibility.
The Court noted that the complaint against the Resolution Professional and the related proceedings stemmed from CIRP proceedings before the NCLT, Bengaluru. It therefore declined to adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Tribunal accepted that part of the cash found with the assessee represented accumulated family savings intended for the medical treatment of his wife suffering from cancer. It granted relief of ₹12 lakh and sustained only ₹7.79 lakh as unexplained income.
The ITAT held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessees did not constitute a valid approval under Section 153D. As a result, the assessment order was quashed and the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed without the mandatory certified copy of the NCLT order was not properly instituted. It set aside the NCLAT’s order condoning delays in filing and refiling the appeal.
The Allahabad High Court quashed GST registration cancellation and revocation rejection orders after finding that hearing dates were fixed before the expiry of the reply period. The Court held that such notices deny a meaningful opportunity of hearing and violate natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on management fees after finding that identical issues in the assessee’s own earlier years had already been decided in its favour. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D reflected no proper application of mind and was issued in a mechanical manner. As a result, the assessments framed pursuant to such approval were quashed.
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its earlier order because the amendment to Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) operated retrospectively from 01.04.1968. The appeals were dismissed and the issue was decided against the assessee.
