CESTAT Delhi held that amounts received by a recovery agent from a lender were taxable as service consideration since no documentary evidence of a joint venture existed. The Tribunal upheld service tax demand, interest, and penalty.
ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not substitute the fair market value of shares without specifically rejecting the assessee’s DCF valuation report. The Tribunal deleted the Rs.4.14 crore addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
The Gujarat High Court held that only the income component embedded in alleged bogus purchases could be taxed instead of the entire purchase amount. The Court upheld the ITAT order restricting disallowance to 6% of disputed purchases linked to accommodation entries.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.36 crore stock valuation addition to the AO after finding that the assessee’s Weighted Average Cost method under AS-2 and ICDS-II was never properly examined. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of inventory valuation records.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court ruling quashing reassessment proceedings where the assessee had disclosed all transactions in audited accounts and income tax returns. The Court left the question of law open.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that receipts from sale of fly ash constituted taxable business income as they arose directly from the assessees power generation activity. The Tribunal held that subsequent credit to a statutory fund amounted only to application of income.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely by reviewing records already examined during original scrutiny. Absence of fresh tangible material made the reopening legally invalid.
The Telangana High Court granted pre-arrest bail in a ₹97.25 crore GST ITC case after observing that the allegations were primarily documentary in nature. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.
The Calcutta High Court condoned a 430-day delay after holding that the death of the assessee’s authorized representative constituted sufficient cause in the faceless tax regime. The Court set aside the ITAT’s dismissal order and restored the appeal for adjudication on merits.
NCLT Mumbai held that the impugned intra-group assignment transaction did not prejudice creditors or alter their position. The Tribunal ruled that essential ingredients of fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the IBC were not established.
