Madras HC held mandatory site restoration costs deductible under Section 37(1), set aside ITAT’s disallowance and dismissed Revenue appeals.
The High Court held that the amended CGST notifications specifically authorize only Additional Commissioners or Joint Commissioners to adjudicate DGGI-issued notices. The impugned order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Madras HC held retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration alone cannot justify denial of ITC. Fresh assessment was ordered.
The High Court upheld the invocation of Section 74 but remitted the matter for verification of revenue neutrality, directing the taxpayer to establish that tax had already been discharged on the goods sent for job work.
Madras HC held one year of practice before Income Tax Authorities is mandatory for registration under Rule 257, despite prescribed qualifications.
The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessment.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals as infructuous after the Tribunal disposed of the main appeals, leaving the legal questions open.
The Madras High Court held that a Section 62 best judgment assessment cannot continue once the taxpayer subsequently files GST returns. The matter was remanded for reassessment after considering the uploaded returns.
The Madras High Court quashed a Section 74 demand after finding the taxpayer’s turnover appeared below the GST registration threshold and no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following due process.
