Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a GST demand of Rs 5 Cr, ruling the amount violated Section 75(7) of the GST Act by exceeding the SCN’s stated liability.
The Supreme Court set aside High Court and ITAT orders, condoning a 166-day delay in an appeal (Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO). The court mandated a justice oriented and liberal approach to delay condonation.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
The Tribunal held that detailed inquiries by the AO made Section 263 inapplicable and upheld the assessee’s claims for capital loss and bad debts on merits.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
Non-service of notice and denial of hearing before adjudication under Section 73 violates Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the demand order passed ex parte under Section 73 in such circumstances was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue’s appeal, confirming that Rs.14.11 crore surplus from perpetual sale of film rights, copyrights, and intellectual property to a third party should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), not Business Income.
In the case of Deepak Jain v. Income Tax Department, the ITAT Delhi held that the BMA cannot be applied to foreign companies and bank accounts that ceased to exist before 1 July 2015, and that once proceedings were pursued under the IT Act rather than the BMA, the revenue may not shift to BMA under doctrine of election.
Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and supported by evidence, entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element can be added, restricting disallowance to ₹8,075 as per Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co.
