ITAT Ahmedabad deleted an addition made due to a minor difference between a firm’s VAT returns and its books of account. Tribunal ruled that variation was a legitimate bookkeeping consequence of statutory ITC reversal under Gujarat VAT Rules and not evidence of inflated purchases.
The ITAT Rajkot set aside reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 against a firm that had previously converted into a private limited company. The Tribunal held that a notice issued in the name of a non-existent entity strikes at the root of jurisdiction and renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
The Supreme Court struck down Bihar Registration Rules requiring proof of Jamabandi/mutation for property registration. The Court ruled that mutation is a fiscal entry that does not confer title, and making it mandatory for registration is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908.
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of recording of non-satisfaction in terms of section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, invocation of Rule 8D is not permissible. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that settlement payments in relation to patent disputes are allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act since the same is not a penalty for an offence or for a purpose prohibited by law.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act impermissible since based solely on change of opinion without any new tangible material. Further, even on merits royalty payment represents a legitimate business expenditure allowable u/s. 37(1).
NCLT Kochi orders liquidation of the Corporate Debtor [M/s. Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd.] as duly approved by CoC and Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor appointed as Liquidator to carry out Liquidation Process as per the approval of CoC.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan for Corporate Debtor as submitted by M/s. West End Investment and Finance Consultancy P. Ltd. is approved u/s. 31(1) of IBC since the same is duly approved by CoC and meets the requirements of IBC and the IBBI Regulations.
Supreme Court upheld the judgement of High Court and held that in case of execution of a works contract through a sub-contractor, the sub-contractor was liable to pay tax under the VAT Act and therefore the payment made by the main contractor to the sub-contractor was not liable to be included in the taxable consideration of the main contractor as this would lead to double taxation.
A valid Chartered Accountant certificate was sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the incidence of 4% SAD was not passed on to customers and discharge the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.
