The Tribunal held that excess service tax paid inadvertently does not qualify as tax under law. As a result, limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable and refund was allowed with interest.
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue prior notice before making adjustments violates the mandatory provisions of Section 143(1)(a). Such procedural lapse renders the entire adjustment legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that adjustments made without issuing prior notice to the assessee violate the mandatory proviso to Section 143(1)(a). Such actions were declared legally unsustainable and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that CPC cannot make adjustments without issuing prior notice under Section 143(1)(a). The disallowance of TDS credit was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that the matter was already settled by an earlier decision on identical facts. It extended the same relief, emphasizing consistency in judicial rulings.
The Court held that electricity duty collected by a licensee is not its own liability but that of consumers. As a result, Section 43B was found inapplicable and the disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
