ITAT Mumbai held that National Payments Corporation of India carries out activities which has been recognized as charitable under category of advancement of object for general public utility. Accordingly, revisionary order u/s. 263 quashed as issue already dealt in detail by AO.
Madras High Court quashes assessment against SMILE Microfinance Ltd. for violation of natural justice and directs reassessment with personal hearing within 12 weeks.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that tax officers cannot block a taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger under Rule 86-A beyond the ITC actually available.
The Court held that supplies made before 18 July 2022 were eligible for the 12% concessional GST rate, as withdrawal of benefit applied prospectively. Taxpayers can file rectification applications under Section 161 to correct such errors.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot discard a registered valuer’s report without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer. The AO’s addition was set aside, and the fair market value must be recomputed based on the valuer’s report.
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that a deficiency memo under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules must be issued within 15 days of filing a refund application. Delay beyond this period entitles taxpayers to interest on the refund.
The Madras High Court stayed recovery for 90 days, allowing Faiz Wahab time to file a stay application after the sale advance refund was taxed as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that refund limitation under Section 27 does not apply to bank guarantees encashed during pending appeals and ordered customs to refund the encashed amount.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
