ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts regarding the return filing date and declared income. The Tribunal ruled that such defective reasons could not support a valid belief of escaped income.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under appellate consideration. No ruling was given on the merits.
The Supreme Court held that SEBI failed to establish fraud and market manipulation in RPL futures transactions. While disgorgement was quashed, penalties for violation of position-limit disclosure requirements were upheld.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after observing that a request for extension of the ITC availment deadline did not fall within matters covered under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act.
The authority clarified that ITC cannot be claimed on amounts recovered from employees toward canteen facilities. Credit is restricted to the expenditure actually incurred by the employer.
SC declined interference as statutory GST appeal was available, but allowed appeal within eight weeks and protected it from dismissal for delay.
The Supreme Court quashed the removal of a Mathadhipati after finding that relied-upon documents were not properly supplied and the enquiry process violated principles of natural justice. A fresh enquiry was ordered through an independent mechanism.
The Delhi High Court held that personal-use disallowance principles applicable to individuals cannot automatically apply to companies. The Tribunal’s order sustaining disallowance of one-sixth of car and telephone expenses was set aside.
The case involved simultaneous proceedings by Central and State GST authorities concerning the same tax period and subject matter. The High Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that only one authority continues adjudication in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The Allahabad High Court held that the impugned notice merely proposed a cess demand and did not contain a final determination. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies by filing objections before the authority.
