MP High Court rules an Advance Ruling (AAR) against one GSTIN holder cannot bind an independent business, even under the same brand, citing Section 103 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Union of India, demanding an explanation for not extending the Income Tax Return (ITR) filing due date under Section after extending the Tax Audit Report deadline under Section to October . The court relied on its previous ruling in the All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants case, which established that the two dates are inextricably linked and must be the same.
The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR), Gujarat, in the case In re Jivagro Limited, classified the product ‘Rapigro’ as a Plant Growth Regulator under HSN 38089340
Delhi High Court held that taxpayers must approach GST Appellate Authority to contest adjudication orders, rejecting arguments that replies ignored at adjudication cannot be considered in appeal.
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai, declined to rule on the customs classification of ‘Roasted Areca Nuts,’ holding that the issue was already decided by the Madras High Court in the applicant’s own case, despite a change in the Customs Tariff Item number.
India’s competition watchdog launches investigation against UFO, Qube, and PVR INOX over the continued levy of Virtual Print Fee (VPF) on film producers.
ITAT Delhi quashed Balaji Metal Tech’s assessment, ruling it void due to mechanical approval, wrong section use (143(3) instead of 153C), and failure to mention DIN in the order.
ITAT Mumbai quashes PCIT’s S. 263 revision against Colgate Palmolive, holding PCIT cannot disregard binding Coordinate Bench order based merely on Supreme Court appeal pendency.
ITAT Delhi quashes search assessments, ruling consolidated S. 153D approval for multiple assessees was mechanical, violating judicial mandate for independent application of mind.
Construction was funded through borrowed money, and assessee sought to utilize the account funds to repay the debt. However, Department denied the request to close the account and release funds citing incomplete construction, use of borrowed funds, non-filing of returns for the relevant assessment years, and non-compliance with Section 54F conditions.
