Karnataka High Court held that the Rs.25 lakh addition towards gross profit was unsustainable, as the Assessing Officer and Tribunal failed to provide a rational basis for estimation, despite proper books of account and explanations regarding exchange rate fluctuations.
ITAT Delhi held that a Local Authority providing general public utility services is not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books was deleted.
Madras High Court held that cancellation of GST registration cannot be absolute; revival is possible with conditions like freezing the Electronic Credit Ledger for six months.
Court quashed the impugned GST order of Rs. 6.26 lakh for FY 2019-20, granting the petitioner 30 days to file a reply and directing the Adjudicating Authority to conduct a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a technical limitation on the GST portal is no ground to deny a taxpayer’s rightful Input Tax Credit (ITC) re-credit. The Department must use manual intervention to credit the amount if the automated system fails, resolving a dispute over Rs. 23.32 lakh in tax credit.
A Delhi High Court ruling affirms that tax authorities cannot cancel a GST registration with retrospective effect from the date of initial registration unless the intention for retrospective cancellation is clearly stated in the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
ITAT Agra condones a 3-year, 5-month delay in a non-profit’s tax appeal, applying the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion. The appeal is restored for a decision on merits.
ITAT Mumbai sends a lakh partner remuneration disallowance case back to AO for re-verification. The disallowance hinged on classifying property sale profit as capital gain.
Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the recovery of GST dues from Shivam Metallurgicals’ Electronic Credit Ledger (ECRL) under Section 79(1)(a) after the assessee failed to pay the demand within the stipulated time.
Jharkhand High Court sets aside a GST appeal rejection based on ‘non-receipt of certified copies,’ deeming it ‘hyper technical.’ Appellate authority must now decide the case on merits.
