The Court held that renting space within a university campus for banks and similar facilities forms part of allied educational services. Consequently, the service tax demand and penalties were quashed.
Supreme Court held that Spectrum allocated to Telecom Service Providers [TSPs] and shown in their books of account as an “asset” cannot be subjected to proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC].
The Court dismissed the plea seeking declaration that statutory university functions are not taxable under GST. It held the issue is already covered by prior decisions and allowed authorities to proceed as per law.
ITAT Mumbai held that the provision for leave encashment made on actuarial basis constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the said ground is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act have no applicability on conversion of Optionally Convertible Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares into equity shares. Accordingly, addition made by invoking section 56(2)(x) cannot be sustained. Thus, appeal is allowed.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] for inquiry do not constitute illegal detention. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation as ordered is justifiable in view of import of Areca Nuts below Minimum Import Price condition. Accordingly, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not warranted and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
Orissa High Court held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in section 54 of the GST Act. Accordingly, refund of taxes deposited twice is allowed and order rejection refund is quashed.
