The ITAT held that reassessment cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer merely relies on an Investigation Wing report without independent verification. The reassessment order was quashed due to lack of independent application of mind.
The Tribunal followed its own earlier rulings in the appellant’s cases and held that the dispute was no longer open to reconsideration. The impugned order was set aside accordingly.
The dispute concerned service tax on the profit margin earned from the sale of imported gold. CESTAT held that the margin arose from trading activity and not from any consignment agent service rendered to the supplier.
The Tribunal held that services of commission agents fall within the scope of “sales promotion” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. As a result, the demand denying Cenvat credit on sales commission services was set aside.
The Gauhati High Court set aside a GST registration cancellation order after finding it to be a non-speaking order without recorded reasons. The matter was restored to the stage of the show cause notice.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand based on delayed ITC claims after noting that Sections 16(5) and 16(6), inserted retrospectively, cured the defect relied upon in the proceedings.
The dispute concerns whether works contracts executed for the Delhi Jal Board attract GST at 12% or 18%. The High Court held that the legal issue regarding DJB’s status as a local authority requires consideration and stayed the show cause notice proceedings.
The dispute concerned whether deduction under Section 80IB should be reduced by the amount already allowed under Section 80HHC. ITAT held that deductions can be computed independently, provided the aggregate deduction does not exceed eligible profits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed appeals warranted condonation in light of an earlier decision on similar facts. The appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were not properly considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
