The Court held that once the GSTAT became functional and appeal timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued before the statutory forum. The petitioner was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8).
ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition based solely on discrepancies in unaudited Tally-generated statements was unsustainable. The Tribunal accepted the audited financial statements and ordered deletion of the ₹36.5 lakh addition.
The Court emphasized that procedural defaults should not override substantive tax benefits where genuine hardship exists. It directed tax authorities to consider delayed returns and proceed with assessments in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court held that letters issued to customers before determination of tax liability could not be used for recovery action. The Court ruled that such communications were invalid in the absence of a crystallised tax demand.
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.
