ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on goodwill cannot be allowed when the goodwill arises from an unsigned and unregistered Business Transfer Agreement. The Tribunal found that such an agreement lacked legal sanctity and evidentiary value.
ITAT Bangalore sustained a ₹47.07 lakh addition under Section 68 after the assessee failed to substantiate cash deposits with documentary evidence. The absence of cash books, sales records, and supporting documents proved fatal to the claim.
NCLT Mumbai allowed the first-motion application for transfer of the realty undertaking into a wholly owned subsidiary. The Tribunal directed a shareholders meeting where required and dispensed with several creditor meetings after statutory conditions were satisfied.
The NCLT refused further extension of the insolvency process after finding no resolution plan, no prospective applicant, and no realistic prospect of resolution. The Tribunal recalled the admission orders and terminated the CIRP.
The Court held that the impugned statements regarding outstanding dues, recovery proceedings, and litigation history were supported by judicial records. It refused to grant an injunction and dismissed the defamation claim at the interim stage.
The Tribunal held that compensatory interest under Section 234B could not be charged when seized cash exceeding the tax liability was already in Revenue’s possession. It directed complete deletion of the interest.
The article explains how shares devolve upon nominees or legal heirs without a transfer deed or consideration. It highlights the legal framework, procedures, and documentation requirements under the Companies Act, 2013.
Maharashtra AAR held that a sewerage infrastructure contract was a composite supply and not a pure service. Exemption under Entry 3A was allowed because the aggregate value of goods was below the prescribed 25% limit, subject to final verification at contract completion.
The Maharashtra AAR held that supplies of warehoused goods to foreign-going vessels, Indian Navy ships, and Coast Guard ships did not qualify as exports because the goods were supplied within India. The transactions were treated as neither supply of goods nor services under Schedule III.
The Maharashtra AAR held that supply of MHADA-reserved flats constituted a taxable works contract service because additional FSI received at the commencement stage formed part of the consideration. The key takeaway is that the post-OC execution of sale agreements did not convert the transaction into a GST-free sale of immovable property.
