Practical checklists and clear explanations for individuals, professionals and businesses.
Kerala High Court set aside consequential GST orders after directing the authority to reconsider Bhima Enterprises' request to revise its KVAT returns for omitted stock transfers.
NCLAT Delhi held that manipulating statutory records to claim 100% shareholding and stripping a company asset through a book entry amounted to continuing oppression and mismanagement.
Madras High Court held that tax and interest were unsustainable where input tax credit automatically reflected in GSTR-2A/2B but was never used to offset outward tax liability.
Delhi ITAT held that Section 68 applies only to sums credited during the relevant previous year. It deleted a ₹1.06 crore addition relating to a brought-forward loan balance and separately cancelled a Section 271AAC penalty, subject to the outcome of pending High Court proceedings.
NCLAT Principal Bench upheld rejection of a Section 9 application that sought recovery of disputed balance interest after the principal operational debt had been paid under a settlement.
NCLT Mumbai held that limitation against an on-demand corporate guarantor began after the first valid invocation in September 2018. A second demand issued in January 2025 could not revive the time-barred Section 7 claim.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that a genuine return-filing mistake should not prevent examination of an otherwise supportable partner remuneration deduction. It restored the ₹6.41 lakh claim to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance if admissible.
The NCLAT set aside the Mumbai NCLT order and held that the transaction was a financial debt. The agreements, interest terms, repayment date, use of funds and ledger treatment showed that the property arrangement secured a loan rather than recording an ordinary sale.
The Pune ITAT held that a 10% gross-profit estimate could not be sustained without a reliable factual basis. For Assessment Year 2017-18, it restricted the rate to 7% after considering the surrounding facts and the need for a reasonable estimate.
Madras High Court clarified that Section 73(2) does not mandate a fixed three-month interval between a GST show cause notice and adjudication order. It nevertheless quashed two contradictory orders for the same period and ordered fresh consideration.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST penalty under Section 122 could not survive when no show cause notice proposing the penalty was issued and no opportunity of hearing was provided.
Delhi ITAT restored a ₹1.18 crore PF/ESI disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the statutory due date should be determined with reference to the month in which salary was actually disbursed.
