The High Court held that salaries paid to foreign employees are excluded from GST under Schedule III as they arise from an employer-employee relationship. The IGST demand, interest, and penalty were quashed.
The Court held that pendency of a Supreme Court challenge on fish meal GST does not waive the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appeal. The petitioner must comply before the appeal is entertained.
The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. However, it ruled that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose his PAN number to defendants.
The High Court set aside a tax demand arising from foreign tax credit mismatch because no valid intimation under Section 143(1) was produced or served. It held that recovery cannot be enforced without mandatory service of notice of demand.
The Tribunal held that year of acquisition is determined by payment and handing over of possession under Section 2(47)(v), not by later registration date. Earlier CII was allowed for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that examining the donor’s creditworthiness and seeking income-tax returns at the registration stage is beyond the scope of section 12AB. Registration cannot be denied on such grounds when charitable objects and activities are genuine.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere long-pending sundry creditors cannot be taxed under Section 41(1) unless there is actual remission or legal cessation of liability. Continued reflection of liabilities in books prevents addition as income.
The Supreme Court held that refund of GST collected and passed on to consumers must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. It ruled that courts cannot create alternative refund mechanisms outside Section 54 of the CGST Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that a Souhadra Sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souhadra Sahakari Act qualifies as a co-operative society under Section 2(19). Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed, and related additions were deleted.
The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discriminatory. The policy was found to limit consumer choice and deny market access to parallel importers, leading to a ₹27.38 crore penalty.
