The issue was whether a vague notice could justify cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that lack of material particulars invalidates the notice and order, leading to restoration of registration.
The Authority declined to hear the case as the applicants address fell outside its jurisdiction. It held that jurisdiction must be determined strictly based on the address provided.
The case examined whether interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are also co-operative societies, making such income eligible.
The issue was whether a notice issued before filing of return satisfies Section 143(2) requirements. The Tribunal held such notice is invalid, rendering the assessment void ab initio.
The Tribunal restored appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, citing pandemic-related disruption and sufficient cause. It directed fresh adjudication while imposing costs on the assessee.
The issue involved challenge to a GST demand order where appeal was delayed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, ensuring the matter can be decided on merits.
The issue was denial of FTC due to delayed filing of Form 67. ITAT held that delay is procedural and directed authorities to grant credit after verification.
The issue was whether penalty under Section 270A is valid without specifying the exact charge. ITAT held that absence of a specific limb of misreporting makes the penalty invalid.
The issue was denial of registration due to non-commencement of activities. ITAT held that proposed activities and initial steps like investment are sufficient and ordered reconsideration.
The issue was whether jewellery found during search can be taxed despite CBDT limits. ITAT held that jewellery within prescribed limits cannot be treated as unexplained income.
