AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled that a co-operative society cannot have its deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) denied due to clerical mistakes on tax returns. It emphasizes proper evaluation over minor errors.
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the use of the word 'may' in the GST amnesty notification creates a directory timeline for filing declarations rather than imposing a mandatory obligation. The court directed authorities to reconsider taxpayers' requests pending resolution.
The Madras High Court upheld a 14.5% VAT on inter-state sales, ruling that capital goods cannot benefit without being used within the state.
The Karnataka High Court determined that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is mandatory and cannot be waived without statutory authority, thereby setting aside prior orders that granted waivers.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the time limit for filing a waiver application under Section 128A is directory and not mandatory, meaning a delay cannot solely justify the rejection of such waivers for GST interest and penalty.
The Advocates Tax Bar Association has requested an extension of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) appeal filing deadline to 31 December 2026, citing ongoing technical issues with the GST portal. This request ensures taxpayers can maintain their statutory right to appeal despite these administrative challenges.
The Gauhati High Court upheld the seizure of areca nuts valued at ₹2.22 crore, citing lack of necessary documentation at the time of interception.
The Telangana High Court ruled that an appeal should not be automatically dismissed as time-barred if the taxpayer was actively pursuing a rectification application, setting aside the rejection order for merits-based reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court ruled that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(5) of the GST Act prevails over the time limit imposed by Section 16(4), allowing taxpayers a chance for ITC relief.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a share premium difference within the 10% safe harbour is not subject to addition under Section 56(2)(viib), confirming the issue price as the fair market value.
The ITAT invalidated a bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) addition, stating the Assessing Officer failed to establish any connection between the assessee and alleged accommodation entries.
The ITAT Ranchi held that interest disallowance was improper as the Assessing Officer failed to properly verify the records or confront the assessee. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT ruled that an opening cash balance cannot be deemed unexplained solely based on nil disclosures from the prior year's income tax return. The decision allows the assessee's explanation of withdrawals from taxed income.