The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
Kerala High Court ruled that authorities must determine both whether the payment amounts to a supply under Section 7(1) and whether exemption provisions apply. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
High Court ruled that a GST order could not survive where SCN did not specify date, time, or venue for personal hearing. Judgment reaffirmed mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of CGST Act.
Tribunal ruled that reimbursable expenses such as freight, warehousing, and terminal handling charges were not liable to service tax. Decision followed Supreme Court judgment declaring Rule 5(1) beyond scope of Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act.
Patna HC refused to interfere with GST proceedings after taxpayer’s representative admitted liability towards interest and penalty during personal hearing. Court held that petitioner could not later take a contradictory stand in writ proceedings.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assessment provisions of Section 153C. ITAT reaffirmed that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by regular scrutiny proceedings.
Delhi ITAT held that investments in immovable properties cannot be treated as unexplained once payments are made through disclosed bank accounts with explained credits. The Tribunal deleted ₹3.29 crore addition for lack of incriminating material.
Delhi ITAT held that cancellation of GST registration and non-response from suppliers alone cannot justify treating entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% profit element, observing that sales and books of account were not rejected.
The Delhi ITAT held that large cash deposits and investigation wing information alone do not create valid reason to believe for reopening assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment based on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction is invalid in law.
