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.
Court directed a fresh assessment, holding that flavoured milk is correctly classified as milk with added sugar (Entry 0402). This classification takes precedence over general beverage entry, ensuring lower 5% GST rate applies.
Supreme Court ruled that High Court erred by dismissing Revenue’s appeal based only on old precedent without examining current facts. Judgment emphasizes that new AUDA tests must be applied to specific factual situation of Development Authority.
Karnataka High Court held that a reassessment notice issued on 7 May 2024 for AY 2017–18 was beyond six-year limitation period under Section 149 of Income Tax Act and therefore invalid.
ITAT Chennai set aside the rejection of an 80G registration application, holding that the prescribed timelines are directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to process the delayed application on its merits under the amended law.
