The case addressed whether a 247-day delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to pandemic-related disruptions. The Court condoned the delay citing exceptional circumstances and directed adjudication on merits.
The case examined denial of credit on GTA services for outward transportation. The Tribunal held that FOR delivery terms made the buyer’s premises the place of removal, allowing credit.
The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The Tribunal allowed concessional duty on imported goods after noting that earlier decisions in identical matters had already settled the issue. It held that reliance on a set-aside order was unsustainable. The key takeaway is that binding precedents must be followed, and overturned orders cannot be relied upon.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
The Court set aside a show cause notice issued for multiple years in a single proceeding. It held that the GST law requires separate assessment for each financial year. The key takeaway is that consolidation of tax periods is not permissible under Section 74.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer wrongly compared dissimilar email marketing services to determine excess payment. The ruling clarifies that only comparable services can be used for arm’s length evaluation, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether multiple medical bills constituted a single transaction under Section 269ST. The Tribunal held that separately billed services are independent transactions, so penalty was not justified.
The case examined whether the accused could disprove liability under Section 138. The court upheld conviction as the presumption remained unrebutted and evidence supported the complainant’s claim.
