Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the allowance of investment deduction under Section 32A for AY 1984-85 and 1985-86. The court noted the tax effect was below the CBDT’s monetary limit and the appellant failed to serve the respondents for years.
The Delhi High Court overturned a ₹19.79 lakh ex-parte GST assessment order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case on merits. The ruling mandates that the Petitioner deposit the tax amount of ₹10.22 lakh and file a reply by the specified deadline.
ITAT ruled that the appeal dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating merits violated natural justice. The Tribunal directed a fresh review, emphasizing that taxing gross receipts without allowing legitimate expenditure is not in accordance with law.
ITAT found authorities erred by upholding CPC’s denial of exemption solely because assessee filed ITR-7 instead of ITR-5. Ruling emphasizes that denying a just claim over procedural non-compliance causes undue hardship to taxpayer.
ITAT allowed taxpayer’s appeal, holding AO erred by applying Section 50C to cash compensation received for extinguishment of a right to receive flats instead of an actual transfer of immovable property. The order directs deletion of confirmed LTCG addition of Rs. 80.32 lakhs.
The Madras High Court quashed an order levying 1% GST on a corporate guarantee furnished to a related party, ruling that the assessing officer failed to consider two relevant CBIC Circulars. The court remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for a fresh determination after considering the petitioner’s defense, which relied on the recipient being eligible for full Input Tax Credit.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹45.69 lakh disallowance made by CPC under Section 43B for unpaid GST/Service Tax. Tribunal held disallowance was invalid because assessee had not claimed taxes as an expenditure in Profit and Loss Account.
Orissa High Court dismissed Commissioner of Customs’ appeal under Section 130 of Customs Act, holding that no substantial question of law arose as Tribunal had rightly found respondent had discharged burden under Section 123 by proving legal ownership of seized gold biscuits.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST cancellation order, ruling that the retrospective cancellation date was invalid as the show-cause notice failed to explicitly propose it.
Delhi High Court permitted petitioners to seek anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 438 for CGST offences, citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Radhika Agarwal case. The interim protection was extended for two weeks to allow the petitioners to apply for bail.
