Uttarakhand High Court held that order of the Competent Authority granting sanction or approval or refusing to grant sanction or approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 is neither a revisable order, nor an appealable order.
The Tribunal ruled that once the original notice itself is jurisdictionally invalid, later compliance with section 148A is irrelevant. Foundational defects cannot be remedied procedurally.
Karnataka High Court held that levy of interest u/s. 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on delayed filing of return not justified as cash is deposited to Electronic Cash Ledger on or before the due date and the amount towards tax by way of Electronic Credit Ledger was available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
ITAT Chandigarh held that passing of final assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act without issuing draft assessment orders under section 144C of the Income Tax Act is untenable. Accordingly, final assessment order u/s. 153A is quashed.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, the entire value of alleged bogus purchases cannot be added under section 69C. Only the embedded profit element is taxable.
The assessment was quashed because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction must exist at the notice stage itself.
The Tribunal ruled that AMP expenses incurred by a brand-owning trader cannot be allocated to contract manufacturers without proof of obligation or agreement. Tax incentives enjoyed by related entities alone were held insufficient.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
The Court ruled that a 67-day delay in filing GST appeal deserved condonation as the taxpayer was pursuing statutory remedies. The appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The High Court ruled that the appellate authority has power to condone delay under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. The key takeaway is that GST appeal timelines are not mandatory and require consideration on merits.
