The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, imposed a ₹20,000 cost on the CBIC Chairman for non-compliance with its earlier directions and for failing to appear despite a specific order. The Tribunal directed that a compliance report or High Court stay order be filed before 11 December 2025.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of a charitable trust whose exemption claim was rejected owing to mismatched registration details, directing a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.
A GST registration cancellation was quashed because the initial Show Cause Notice (Form GST REG-17) did not include a definite date and time for the taxpayer to appear, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 22(1).
The ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
The Gujarat High Court held that a reassessment notice issued in the name of a deceased person is void and unenforceable, quashing the notice and related order.
ITAT Chennai ruled that the CIT(E)’s scope for Section 12AB registration is limited to verifying charitable objects and activity genuineness, not conducting a full assessment of commercial income. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration.
The Madras High Court held that recovery of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall remain stayed when the main income tax appeal involving related issues has been admitted by the court.
The issue was whether customs could deny AIFTA duty exemption for ten consignments based only on irregularities found in a separate, single import. The CESTAT set aside the duty demand, holding that the exemption cannot be denied without a finding on the authenticity or validity of the individual Certificate of Origin (COO).
The Bombay High Court ruled that the Assessing Officer’s steps under Section 148A, taken despite a continuing stay order, were illegal and directed refund adjustment amounts to be deposited in court.
