The High Court held that a writ petition against a show cause notice is ordinarily not maintainable when adjudication has not begun. It directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply and permitted all issues to be decided during adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that allegations regarding incorrect or incomplete disclosures in an election affidavit cannot be examined in a writ petition. It ruled that such challenges must be pursued through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made where the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. It upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that excess application of income by a charitable trust can be adjusted against subsequent year’s income if supported by the trust’s books and records. It remanded the matter to the AO only for factual verification.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund cannot be denied merely because invoices do not mention batch numbers if the required correlation is established through contemporaneous records. The matter was remanded for limited verification.
The ITAT Bangalore held that the return of income and Form No. 10DA were filed within the prescribed due date of 30.11.2018. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80JJAA.
The NCLT held that limitation against the personal guarantor commenced when the continuing guarantee was invoked and not from the date of default. It admitted the insolvency petition after finding it was filed within the applicable limitation period.
CESTAT held that the appellant produced sufficient contractual and documentary evidence to establish that the incidence of OID Cess had not been passed on to the buyer. It therefore rejected the Department’s plea of unjust enrichment.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely describing a transaction as a loan by one party and a purchase advance by the other could not justify revision under Section 263. As the source of funds was explained and the amount was refunded, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.
The Gauhati High Court directed restoration of the cancelled GST registration subject to payment of all outstanding tax dues, penalties, and fines. The Court granted relief by following its earlier decision in a similar matter.
