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.
CESTAT Chennai held that credits relating to renovation, sales promotion, testing services, vehicle-related expenses, and similar services could not be denied when they had a real nexus with taxable output services. The ruling clarifies that functional connection with business activities remains relevant even after amendments to the definition of input services.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion regarding penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and absence of direct incriminating material supported the assessee’s LTCG claim.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject transaction value. The Tribunal quashed the demand, confiscation, and penalties after finding no proof of additional consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that estimating income at 8% of turnover was excessive where the assessee’s accounts were tax-audited and past profit history reflected lower margins. The Tribunal restricted the addition by adopting a 4% profit rate based on the facts of the case.
