The High Court held that dismissal of a GST appeal on delay was improper where illness was supported by records. The key takeaway is that marginal delay with valid reasons must be condoned.
The High Court held that inter-State supplies remain taxable under IGST where goods are delivered outside the State. Contractual clauses on transfer of title cannot override Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act.
The case addressed GST demands raised through orders uploaded on the portal without proof of access. The Court ruled such orders were not effectively communicated. Matters were remanded after setting aside the demands, subject to partial deposit.
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
NCLAT Delhi held that Form-B under CIRP Regulations, 2016 contemplates specifically permits set-off mutual credit, mutual debts, or mutual dealings between the Corporate Debtor and Creditor. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of refund claim, filed in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Customs, merely for the reason that Chartered Account Certificate is not as per prescribed format is not sustainable since format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested format and not a mandatory format.
The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
Supreme Court held that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act is not general exemption. Such deduction is specific incentive attached strictly to the profits arising from a defined activity namely, the provision of long-term finance.
Allahabad High Court held that writ petition under Article 226 is not be maintainable if there is an alternative remedy under different jurisdiction of the same High Court. Accordingly, writ by developers challenging concurrent orders of Consumer Commissions dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
