The CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for tsunami-affected persons does not fall within the definition of a residential complex and is therefore not liable to service tax. The Tribunal set aside the demand after following its earlier decisions on similar rehabilitation projects.
The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to act on the Tribunal’s direction requiring a speaking order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Holding that prolonged administrative inaction cannot leave an assessee without a remedy, the Court ordered time-bound disposal of the appeal.
The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee’s request to consider exemption under the correct statutory provision after a bona fide error. It set aside the orders and directed a fresh assessment.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 252-day delay after finding that the assessees legal representatives had shown sufficient cause arising from illness, death and family disputes. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without evaluating the delay condonation application and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not arbitrarily determine the arm’s length price of management services at nil despite evidence establishing receipt of services. The Tribunal restored the assessees TNMM-based benchmarking by following its earlier decision.
The Karnataka High Court held that the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality because the Tribunal ignored invoices showing that GST had already been included in at least some non-tendered work bills. The Court set aside the award on this limited issue and directed fresh computation of GST and consequential interest.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Income Tax Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation by filing pending returns and paying unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The competent authority was directed to decide the application in accordance with law.
The Karnataka High Court held that courts cannot direct GST authorities to waive statutory interest, penalty, or limitation merely because contractors face disputes over reimbursement of GST. The ruling clarifies that contractual disputes cannot override the statutory GST framework.
The ITAT Surat held that cash deposited during demonetisation was sufficiently explained through opening cash-in-hand, prior bank withdrawals, and cash received from the deceased husband. It ruled that Section 69A addition could not be sustained merely on assumptions about human conduct.
