CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
ITAT Chennai held that amount paid by company on behalf of shareholder which has been subsequently re-paid by the shareholder or his family members either on the same day or within a short period cannot be considered as loan or advance which can be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that non-reflection of Cenvat Credit in ST-3 return cannot be ground to deny refund of unutilized cenvat credit.
ITAT Bangalore held that business of the assessee is to invest in shares and that the borrowing was for the purpose of business. Accordingly, interest paid on such borrowing is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value merely on the basis of NIDB (National Import Database) data without any other independent evidence is not acceptable.
ITAT Delhi held that lower of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss deserved to be set off against the current year books profit in terms of provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 115JB (2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that arms length interest rate for loan advanced to foreign subsidiary by Indian company should be computed based on market determined interest rate applicable to currency in which loan has to be repaid.
Lyka Labs Limited Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court held that the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is not the drawer in terms of section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under section 143A. Facts- The issue involves that whether […]
NCLAT Chennai held that as assets proved to be fictitious/ fraudulent and seems to have been created in books of accounts with an intent to defraud the creditors. Accordingly, amount duly payable to liquidator for distribution under section 53 of I&B Code, 2016.
