The issue involved expiring tenures of tribunal members and lack of replacement mechanisms. The Supreme Court permitted a uniform extension framework up to September 2026. The decision aims to maintain operational tribunals pending legislative reform.
The tribunal set aside the assessment after finding that faceless assessment proceedings were initiated before the scheme was formally notified, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The High Court held that ITC claims for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 remain valid if returns were filed before 30 November 2021 under the amended Section 16(5).
The ITAT Mumbai held that adjustments under Section 143(1) cannot be made without issuing prior intimation to the taxpayer. As CPC failed to provide such notice or reasons, the adjustment and resulting demand were set aside.
The court held that the Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the criminal case and directing compensation against police officials.
The Supreme Court asked the government to review policies promoting pulses cultivation after concerns were raised about insufficient MSP incentives and market support for farmers.
The tribunal ruled that the six-month limit introduced in 2014 cannot be applied to invoices issued before the amendment, as it would retrospectively restrict an accrued credit entitlement.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) as the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents for rent payments. In the absence of evidence, the claim of ₹1,08,000 was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal ruled that before 01.04.2016 Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution of credit by ISDs. As the disputed period fell within that timeframe, denial of credit on proportionality grounds was unsustainable.
The tribunal ruled that discounts offered on demo vehicles cannot reduce assessable value since the vehicles are identical to normal cars cleared to dealers.
