Karnataka High Court rules in favor of JSW Steel, stating the denial of a cross-examination opportunity for third-party witnesses in a GST adjudication violates natural justice principles.
The GST Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Uttarakhand refused to admit an application from Stellar Cold Chain Inc., which sought a ruling on whether the storage of frozen peas is exempt from GST.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) rules on a GST anti-profiteering case, reducing the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering’s (DGAP) profiteering claim of ₹1.49 crore against Theco India Pvt. Ltd. This case examines the obligation to pass on Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits to consumers under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment notices issued in July 2022 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were barred by limitation, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under Section 270A cannot be automatically imposed for an addition made under the deemed provisions of Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal quashed a penalty on a taxpayer who purchased property below stamp duty value, stating such additions do not constitute under-reporting of income.
In Aadinath Gems Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai deleted an unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68 for an amount from a prior year, while remanding the share application money dispute to the AO for fresh verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, in the case of Dalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, ruled that expenses on vehicle maintenance and club fees, when taxed as perquisites in the hands of directors and employees,
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue’s appeal against D&Y Technologies, confirming that the Assessing Officer cannot reject a company’s books of account based solely on a decline in profit rates or disallow director’s salary without evidence that the payment was not for business purposes.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., holding that a further Section 14A disallowance is unwarranted when the assessee’s own disallowance exceeds the exempt income.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Nilesh Shirish Mehta, setting aside a reassessment order for AY 2015-16. The tribunal found the Section 148 notice, issued after April 1, 2021, to be time-barred and invalid based on concessions made by the Department before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
