CESTAT Mumbai set aside an order that rejected an exporter’s supplementary claim for Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) refund. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period.
CESTAT Delhi set aside an appellate order, holding that the time limit for filing an appeal starts from the date the rectification of mistake order (Section 74) is passed. The appeal was therefore deemed filed within the prescribed limitation period.
SC reaffirmed that disqualification of bids must strictly follow tender terms, holding that Mandi Parishad acted beyond its powers by rejecting a technical bid based on an unstated requirement for DM-issued solvency proof.
SC clarified that Delhi’s mixed-use policy cannot be exploited for unrestricted business expansion. Only ground floors approved as shops can operate commercially; upper floors require prior conversion approval. Judgment safeguards planned urban development under MPD-2021.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by players for playing cricket are not taxable under Business Support Service, upholding the Commissioner’s decision that only promotional income, if any, could attract tax.
Bombay HC directed tax department to issue Form GST PMT-03 after denying a refund, ensuring taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger is re-credited within 15 days. Court left the issue of interest open for departmental consideration.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
Delhi HC set aside Section 148A order against Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, ruling the AO failed to consider the detailed submission, violating natural justice principles.
ITAT Pune held that interest credited on fixed deposits in assessee’s name remains taxable, even if underlying development agreement was later cancelled, as assessee retained ownership of account and TDS was deducted under her PAN.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
