The ITAT Hyderabad accepted the assessee’s explanation that supporting documents could not be produced because the accountant was unavailable due to his son’s serious illness. It admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The Madras High Court upheld GST demands after finding that higher seigniorage fees and lower outward supply declarations provided sufficient basis to invoke Section 74. The Court ruled that the material on record justified proceedings for alleged suppression of turnover.
ITAT Pune held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was approved by the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii). The reassessment order was declared void ab initio.
ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with a co-operative bank remained attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) was therefore allowed.
ITAT Pune held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority prescribed by law. The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be invoked where shares were allotted at a premium to a 100% holding company. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition, finding that the transaction did not defeat the purpose of the deeming provision.
The ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(viib) was not attracted where shares were allotted to existing shareholders without any change in ownership or control. It deleted the addition after finding that the purpose of the deeming provision was not defeated.
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring employers to purchase shares from the market instead of issuing ESOP shares ignores commercial realities. Finding no substantial question of law, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Delhi High Court held that ESOP expenditure cannot be disallowed merely because shares were allotted instead of purchased from third parties. It found no substantial question of law and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Telangana High Court held that a show cause notice merely reproducing Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act without disclosing factual allegations violates principles of natural justice. It set aside both the cancellation notice and the suspension of GST registration while permitting fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
