The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that depositing money into the electronic cash ledger does not discharge GST liability. Tax is treated as paid only when the amount is debited and appropriated to the Government account, making interest payable for the delay.
The Court held that allegations of organized tax evasion are covered by the exception in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and therefore cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of low tax effect.
The Delhi High Court held that expenditure on gifts, boarding, and lodging incurred for a General Body Meeting was allowable under Section 37. The Court ruled that expenses incurred to fulfill statutory obligations constitute business expenditure.
The High Court accepted a mediation settlement resolving long-pending land acquisition disputes involving compensation, interest, and pending proceedings. The settlement was treated as a final and binding resolution between the parties.
The Tribunal held that once a Section 35D claim was accepted in earlier years, it could not be disallowed in the final amortization year without disturbing the original allowance. The disallowance of preliminary expenses was therefore delete
ITAT Bangalore ruled that rejection of an 80G registration application merely for quoting the wrong section code violated principles of natural justice. The authority was directed to consider the corrected application on merits.
The Supreme Court held that heirs inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take definite shares as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. A widow holding only a 1/5th share could not act as karta to sell the entire property on grounds of legal necessity.
Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed miscellaneous applications after a lapse of 14 years without establishing sufficient cause for non-appearance, and where service of the original order was presumed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as the term “afterwards” used in Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules provided procedural flexibility but did not grant an indefinite timeline.
Show cause notice dated 06-12-2012 issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, was quashed for lack of jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
