The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that the AO had examined salary and business promotion expenses, making Section 263 revision invalid. It held that when two views are possible, revisional interference is unwarranted.
The Court held that goods moved as stock transfer could not be treated as sale and that technical mistakes in the e-way bill did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside, and the order was quashed.
The Court held that no clause in the contract provides reimbursement for increased GST rates. The writ was dismissed, and the contractor was directed to pursue contractual dispute remedies.
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the alleged violations and given reasons for lifting the suspension. With a fresh suspension issued during the appeal, the Tribunal held the matter to be infructuous and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that discrepancies between statements and Bills of Entry cannot justify rejecting genuine import documents. Confiscation was overturned as the Bills of Entry were improperly disregarded.
The dealer argued that all purchases supported by Form 38, Form C, and stock registers were properly recorded but overlooked by the Tribunal. The Court found that the assessment order itself accepted turnover and reflected no defects in the books. Because the Tribunal failed to address these grounds, the case was remanded.
Courts ruled that interest paid on loans to associated companies is deductible if commercially expedient and used for business purposes. Lower interest rates compared to borrowed funds do not warrant disallowance. Section 36(1)(iii) allows deductions irrespective of the capital asset acquired.
The Madras High Court held that an investment company’s interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was invalid as it followed a cash system of accounting. The Tribunal’s deletion of the addition was upheld, confirming that matching principles are not applicable under cash-based accounting.
The High Court set aside a tax demand that exceeded the amount stated in the show-cause notice, holding it violative of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that authorities failed to conduct basic enquiries before alleging reuse of transport documents. The seizure and appellate orders were quashed as unsustainable.
