The Tribunal held that a trust’s application for regular registration could not be rejected solely because the wrong clause was selected in the prescribed form. It directed the authority to treat the application under the correct provision and decide it on merits.
Although the applicants highlighted the prolonged pendency of the case, the Court found that factual and legal issues remained to be examined at trial. The proceedings were therefore not quashed.
The Court held that a bail condition linked to tax and penalty amounts that were yet to be determined was vague and unenforceable. Security of disclosed assets was accepted in its place.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where a statutory appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act was available. Liberty was granted to file the appeal before the prescribed deadline.
The High Court held that returns filed before the cut-off date specified in Section 16(5) entitled the taxpayer to claim ITC. It quashed the order denying ITC based on the limitation under Section 16(4).
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid for outward freight and insurance was admissible where goods were delivered at the buyer’s premises and ownership passed there. The demand was set aside on merits and limitation.
The Gujarat High Court held that tax liabilities relating to periods before approval of a resolution plan stood extinguished under Section 31 of the IBC. Consequently, the assessment order and demand notice were quashed.
The case involved additions for alleged on-money in Godhavi land transactions based on a handwritten loose sheet. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration, highlighting issues relating to evidence and assessment findings.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The revision order was quashed for travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings.
The Kerala High Court held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) was unavailable where borrowed money was invested as capital in a partnership firm and not used for the assessee’s own business.
