The ITAT Delhi held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not arbitrarily determine the arm’s length price of management services at nil despite evidence establishing receipt of services. The Tribunal restored the assessees TNMM-based benchmarking by following its earlier decision.
The Karnataka High Court held that the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality because the Tribunal ignored invoices showing that GST had already been included in at least some non-tendered work bills. The Court set aside the award on this limited issue and directed fresh computation of GST and consequential interest.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Income Tax Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation by filing pending returns and paying unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The competent authority was directed to decide the application in accordance with law.
The Karnataka High Court held that courts cannot direct GST authorities to waive statutory interest, penalty, or limitation merely because contractors face disputes over reimbursement of GST. The ruling clarifies that contractual disputes cannot override the statutory GST framework.
The ITAT Surat held that cash deposited during demonetisation was sufficiently explained through opening cash-in-hand, prior bank withdrawals, and cash received from the deceased husband. It ruled that Section 69A addition could not be sustained merely on assumptions about human conduct.
The Madras High Court held that penalty cannot be imposed when the entire turnover is disclosed and the incorrect classification arose from a bona fide belief. The Court upheld the deletion of penalty as there was no evidence of tax evasion or mala fide intention.
The Court held that a taxpayer who cleared outstanding GST dues could apply for revocation of a cancelled registration despite the application not being entertained earlier due to limitation. The authority must examine the application after verifying payment and return compliance.
The ITAT Ranchi held that a retired non-government employee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(10AA)(ii) for the entire leave encashment amount in view of CBDT Notification No. 31/2023. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the claim.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that bagasse is an agricultural waste and not a manufactured product, making Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules inapplicable. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and dismissed Revenue’s demand for credit reversal, interest, and penalty.
