The Rajasthan High Court directed taxpayers to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Appeals filed within 30 days must be decided on merits without examining limitation.
The Calcutta High Court held that prepayment charges, commitment charges and processing fees formed part of the recoverable debt under the lending arrangement. The bank was therefore entitled to retain the pledged FDR until all contractual liabilities were discharged.
ITAT Chennai held that revision under Section 263 could not survive on the issue of prior period expenditure after the Assessing Officer verified and accepted the claim in the consequential assessment. The revision was sustained only on the remaining issues.
ITAT held that Accounting Standard-19 governs accounting treatment but does not determine tax treatment under the Income-tax Act. It ruled that depreciation belongs to the legal owner while lease rentals remain deductible for the lessee.
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A after finding that the Revenue had recorded adequate material supporting its reasons to believe the transactions were fraudulent. The Court also directed the Department to complete the consequential proceedings expeditiously.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sugar exported out of India was exempt from the whole of the sugar cess under the 1993 exemption notification. Since the exports were undisputed, the Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalty.
The CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for tsunami-affected persons does not fall within the definition of a residential complex and is therefore not liable to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the demand after following its earlier decisions on similar rehabilitation projects.
The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to act on the Tribunal’s direction requiring a speaking order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Holding that prolonged administrative inaction cannot leave an assessee without a remedy, the Court ordered time-bound disposal of the appeal.
The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee’s request to consider exemption under the correct statutory provision after a bona fide error. It set aside the orders and directed a fresh assessment.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 252-day delay after finding that the assessees legal representatives had shown sufficient cause arising from illness, death and family disputes. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without evaluating the delay condonation application and restored the matter for decision on merits.
