ITAT Kolkata sets aside ₹1.86 Cr tax addition, ruling that CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order on merits and cannot merely uphold the AO’s view or dismiss an appeal for non-compliance.
Summary of the Bombay High Court judgment where a charitable trust’s oversight in e-verifying its Form 10B was considered a human error and the delay was condoned, securing its Section 11 income tax exemption for A.Y. 2017-18.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹14 lakh cash deposit addition during demonetization, ruling that retaining cash from duly accounted sources for a long period is not grounds for suspicion.
The Delhi High Court, in Purshottam Ray vs CGST, rejected a writ challenging a massive GST demand in a bogus invoice scam, directing the petitioner to file a delayed appeal.
The Allahabad High Court granted a stay on proceedings against Maa Vindhya Vasini Tobacco challenging a GST levy calculated on a compounded basis using assumed manufacturing capacity.
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a review petition filed by Kunal BSBK Joint Venture seeking GST reimbursement from the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, holding that the petition lacked an error apparent on the record and was an attempt to re-argue the contractual dispute.
The High Court allowed a writ petition, ruling that the mere expiry of an e-way bill due to an unforeseen vehicle breakdown and subsequent transshipment of goods does not, in itself, establish an intent to evade tax under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
The Delhi High Court relegated Ortho Clinical Diagnostics to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge a ₹39.82 crore GST demand and penalty based on the classification of reagent and equipment supplies as ‘mixed supply’ at the highest rate of 18%.
Allahabad High Court rules in Singhal Iron Traders v. Addl. Commissioner that ITC cannot be denied when purchases were made from a registered dealer and tax was paid.
Highlighting the consistency of its judicial stand, the AP High Court ruled that the non-issuance of a prior notice under CGST Rule 142(1A) vitiates the entire assessment process.
