The Court held that the product fits within the specific “fruit drink” entry under UPVAT and cannot be taxed under the residuary entry at 12.5%. Regulatory food classification was deemed irrelevant for VAT purposes.
The Supreme Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition in limine does not result in merger of the High Court judgment. A review petition before the High Court remains maintainable unless leave to appeal has been granted.
The Tribunal ruled that adjournment based on pending comments from the Assessing Officer requires a definite timeline. It stressed orderly conduct and procedural fairness in handling multiple connected appeals.
Observing that six out of ten heirs supported the nominee and only one objected, the Court restored the membership decision. It held that revisional interference was unwarranted in absence of eligibility dispute.
ITAT Pune held that time limit of six months for filing an application u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act applies only to trusts which have not started charitable activities and not to trust which has already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional registration. Accordingly, application held to be valid and maintainable.
The ITAT held that Section 43B applies even if interest is capitalised to work-in-progress instead of claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was justified in reducing WIP for unpaid interest to a Scheduled Bank.
The Court quashed GST adjudication orders on excess ITC for violating Sections 75(4) and 75(6) due to absence of reasons and denial of hearing, directing fresh proceedings with proper particulars.
The High Court quashed the adjudication order after finding that the authority failed to consider uncontroverted submissions on valid tax invoices and GSTR filings, directing fresh hearing.
The Bombay High Court permitted videography of statements and allowed an advocate to sit at a visible but not audible distance during a Section 70 CGST inquiry. The relief was granted considering the petitioner’s medical condition and willingness to cooperate.
ITAT Mumbai held that even a small stock discrepancy can attract Section 69A if unexplained. Lack of supporting evidence led to confirmation of addition.
