The ITAT Rajkot allowed a taxpayer’s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)’s order which confirmed over Rs. 1.17 crore in tax additions. The Tribunal ruled that the lower authorities violated natural justice by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to explain disputed creditors and expense disallowances.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Casio India for AY 2017-18, upholding the deletion of a Transfer Pricing adjustment for AMP expenses. The court ruled that the issue was covered by prior judgments, which rejected the Bright Line Test methodology.
Gujarat AAAR rules that companies cannot claim GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) on share buyback expenses, as securities are neither goods nor services under GST law.
Punjab and Haryana High Court rules the time spent on a GST rectification application under Section 161 must be excluded from the appeal limitation period under Section 107, setting aside an appeal’s dismissal based on delay.
Karnataka High Court rules that duty on capital goods imported by an EOU is not leviable if the goods are installed and used for manufacturing, even if the export obligation is unfulfilled. Penalties under Section 112(a) are also invalidated.
The petitioner challenging GST orders was directed to comply with Trade Circular 13 August 2024 for interim protection; constitutional claims on Section 16(2)(c) can be raised only after exhausting remedies before the future GST Tribunal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is inapplicable to additional income surrendered during a survey operation that took place before the provision was amended to prescribe the enhanced rate.
Orders blocking GST input tax credit under Rule 86-A were set aside because the petitioner filed a reply within the timeline, but the department issued restrictive orders prematurely without hearing the petitioner.
A school challenged the MCD’s tax calculation under the SUNIYO Amnesty Scheme. The Delhi High Court, citing an SC restraint on similar interim orders, rejected the plea for a conditional deposit, reinforcing the policy-based nature of tax amnesty offers.
The Madras High Court set aside an assessment order against Gayathri Builder, which failed to respond to a GST Show Cause Notice. The court quashed the order and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication, contingent on the builder depositing 25/% of the disputed tax and filing a complete reply within 30 days.
