ITAT Hyderabad held that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation extensions apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not to statutory deadlines like filing TDS statements. Consequently, the levy of late filing fee under section 234E was upheld for delayed TDS returns.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
The ITAT Chennai held that an application filed after the extended deadline should be examined under the amended Section 80G provisions introduced by the Finance Act 2024. The Tribunal directed the authority to reconsider the application under the new clause allowing filing after commencement of activities.
The Court expressed concern over unclear railway fund allocation and emphasized that spending must prioritize public safety and welfare. Railways were directed to submit a detailed affidavit explaining funding priorities.
Rajasthan High Court held that failure to file GST returns in one state makes the taxpayer a defaulter and can justify denial of GST registration in another state.
The tribunal held that steel items used for maintenance and repair of manufacturing machinery fall within the scope of inputs used in relation to manufacture. The demand for reversal of Cenvat credit and penalty was set aside.
The Madras High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected at the institution stage without numbering the suit. It ruled that courts perform a ministerial function while numbering suits and set aside the trial court’s rejection order.
ITAT Raipur held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an income tax appeal solely for non-prosecution.
The Karnataka High Court set aside orders rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 credit claims after noting that relevant documents were not examined earlier. The matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority.
High Court held that adjusting the entire refund during operation of a Tribunal stay order contravened the order and required refund of the excess amount.
