ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effect order was invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed without establishing a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business use. The absence of supporting evidence led to deletion of the addition.
The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not require any mandatory pre-deposit. The Court upheld the direction to pursue the statutory remedy and protected the appellant on limitation.
ITAT Chennai held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied through TDS processing for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A was introduced only prospectively.
The ITAT held that, following the Supreme Court’s ruling denying LFC exemption for foreign travel, a bank could be treated as an assessee in default where no court order restrained TDS deduction.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s view that a later judicial pronouncement cannot constitute a “mistake apparent from the record” under Section 254(2).
The Court held that alleged non-compliance relating to bank account details under Rule 10A must be addressed through Form GST REG-31 after suspension of registration. Use of Form GST REG-17 was found legally unsustainable.
The Madras High Court held that refusal to permit cross-examination does not automatically vitiate GST proceedings involving alleged fraudulent ITC claims. Taxpayers can establish entitlement to ITC through independent documentary evidence.
CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses recovered on an actual basis could not be included in taxable value for periods prior to 14 May 2015. The ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s decision on the scope of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The Delhi High Court held that directing GST authorities to provide seven days’ prior notice before coercive action does not amount to blanket anticipatory bail. The ruling clarified that such protection merely preserves the individual’s right to seek legal remedies while allowing investigations to continue unhindered.
