The Allahabad High Court held that persons illegally detained beyond permissible limits are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per day. The Court directed that such compensation be recovered from the salaries of erring officials after disciplinary proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent from GSTR-2A. The Court held that GSTR-2A did not capture such data during the relevant period, making the demand unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the issue of broken period interest when the legal position had already been settled by binding precedents. The Court quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A and 148.
The Orissa High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4) could not be rejected as time-barred. The ruling emphasises proper computation of limitation by excluding the date of communication of the order.
The Court held that where a purchasing dealer has complied with statutory requirements and acted in good faith, ITC cannot be denied solely because the supplier failed to discharge tax obligations. The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were therefore quashed.
ITAT Delhi remitted matters relating to sections 12AB and 80G after finding that the impugned orders did not clearly establish whether the assessee had filed replies or complied with notices. The cases were sent back for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from surplus funds deposited with banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Prudent deployment of business funds does not alter the nature of the income.
ITAT Delhi held that professional fees claimed for raising working capital limits could not be fully allowed as the taxpayer failed to establish their business relevance. However, considering the circumstances, only 50% of the expenditure was disallowed.
The ITAT Dehradun held that cash turnover in a petrol pump business during demonetisation could not be disregarded entirely. Considering the facts of the case, it reduced the addition under Section 68 to a lump sum of Rs.5 lakh.
The ITAT Dehradun remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC after observing that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
