The Calcutta High Court held that a business has no legal right to compel ChatGPT to display its links or promote its platform. The Court refused interim relief after finding no prima facie legal right or intellectual property infringement.
The Karnataka High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the possible legal views. The Commissioner’s revisional order and the Tribunal’s order were quashed.
The NCLT initiated bankruptcy proceedings after finding that the personal guarantor failed to submit a repayment plan during the insolvency resolution process. It held that the statutory requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been substantially complied with.
The Gujarat High Court held that the reassessment notice issued under the new regime was time-barred as it was issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and interpreted by the Supreme Court. The notice, order under Section 148A(d), and consequential proceedings were quashed.
The High Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted. It granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act.
The Uttarakhand High Court permitted the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation after clearing all outstanding dues. It directed the authority to decide the application preferably within four weeks.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the doctrine of merger did not bar revision under Section 263 because the applicability of Section 50C was never considered during the reassessment or appellate proceedings. It upheld the revision while directing fresh consideration of the property’s valuation through the prescribed statutory mechanism.
CESTAT Chennai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the earlier Tribunal decision had already ruled that service tax on works contract services for construction of educational institutions during the disputed period was unsustainable. The Tribunal found no basis to revive the demand by reclassifying the institutions.
CESTAT Allahabad held that customs valuation cannot be enhanced solely on the basis of a Chartered Engineer’s report that is unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal set aside the enhanced duty, confiscation and penalties after finding no basis for re-determination of value.
The ITAT Kolkata held that electricity supplied by captive power plants should be benchmarked using the tariff charged by State Electricity Boards to industrial consumers for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. It upheld deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment by following Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court rulings.
