The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order after finding it failed to consider binding rulings on DGFT authority and import restrictions under the FTDR Act. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on established legal principles.
The Bombay High Court condoned a 338-day delay in filing Form No. 10 for income accumulation under Section 11(2), holding that genuine hardship justified relaxation of procedural deadlines.
The Court held that Rule 86A can be applied only to ITC actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger on the date of the blocking order. The decision sets aside the blocking and directs restoration of credit recovered under the invalid order.
The Court held that Section 161 cannot be invoked to amend a show cause notice and found the rectification request to be a delaying tactic. It ruled that alleged errors must be raised in the response to the notice.
Court held that a statutory appeal cannot be denied merely because GST portal reflects ‘Nil’ disputed tax. It directed GSTN to modify system and allowed taxpayer to file a physical appeal pending correction.
Tribunal held that earlier expense disallowances were excessive and reduced them to 10% of turnover. The ruling emphasizes that lack of supporting documents justifies estimation but requires reasonable limits.
This case addressed the scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration Act regarding the interest awarded in a commercial dispute. The Court found no perversity in the Arbitrator’s decision to award the contractual 24% rate, rejecting the borrower’s claims under the outdated Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The ruling emphasizes that the Arbitration Act framework overrides State usury laws for NBFC lending and bars courts from reopening contractual rates.
The PCIT held the AO’s assessment under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, directing fresh verification of various deductions. The assessee argued all claims were correctly examined, questioning the jurisdiction of section 263.
ITAT Bangalore held that assets received for testing purpose and there is no specific benefit that arises to the assessee with respect to usage of those assets, the same is not taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition based on ad hoc method not justifiable since assessee followed Percentage of Completion Method for revenue recognition adhering to guidance note on Accounting of Real Estate Transactions issued by ICAI. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
