This landmark ITAT Delhi decision clarifies the scope of Fees for Technical Services, stating that routine repair and replacement work, even with incidental installation by a foreign vendor, does not meet the FTS criteria. The Tribunal deleted the consequential TDS demand, emphasizing that the payment was for commercial profit, supported by precedents on routine maintenance.
Hyderabad ITAT dismissed an appeal, holding that a construction company couldn’t use the Section 153A assessment process, triggered by a search, to claim a Section 80-IA deduction it had omitted in its original return. Following the Supreme Court’s Shelly Products ratio, the Tribunal affirmed that the assessed income cannot be less than the income originally returned when the assessment was complete.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that an appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the assessment was framed under an old PAN and the appeal filed under a new, active PAN. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case to the AO to verify the source of cash deposits of Rs. 85.31 lakh, allowing the assessee to prove the amounts were already accounted for as business receipts.
The central issue was the correct depreciation rate for the HP Indigo Digital Press. ITAT Mumbai ruled the printer is an integral part of a computer system due to its reliance on interface and proprietary software, thus allowing the higher 60% depreciation rate. This ruling confirms that machines functionally dependent on a computer system qualify for the higher depreciation applicable to ‘computers’.
The core issue was the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to two contradictory CIT(A) orders, one of which cited the late filing of Form 67. The ITAT ruled that since Form 67 was filed before the end of the Assessment Year as per the amended Rule 128(9), the assessee is entitled to the FTC. This decision confirms the extended time limit for filing Form 67 and upholds the principle that one appellate authority cannot overrule a final order of another appellate authority for the same year.
The issue was the summary dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite giving only a one-day notice for hearing and a timely adjournment request. The ITAT ruled that dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back, emphasizing the requirement for adequate opportunity of hearing in appellate proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an Appellate Authority’s order by clarifying the calculation of the four-month limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment confirms that the first day is excluded, the period is calculated in ‘months’ (not days), and the corresponding date rule applies, validating an appeal filed on the last day of the extended grace period.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
Jharkhand High Court dismisses bail in case of fraudulent availment and passing of fake GST Input Tax Credit, holding the offence as a serious crime affecting national economic health.
Karnataka High Court confirms that secured creditors can recover dues from property before GST claims if their SARFAESI Act charge predates the GST encumbrance, ensuring proper auction proceedings.
