NCLT Amravati held that application filed by SBI (creditor) u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of insolvency procedure dismissed as demand notice not served to Personal Guarantor on correct address.
Bombay High Court held that amount payable has been quantified before 30th June 2019 and hence eligible to avail benefit under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS).
Karnataka High Court held that settlement commission, accepting additional income offered as reasonable and giving immunity from penalty and prosecution, by accepting the explanation ‘in the spirit of settlement’ cannot be faulted.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, in absence of independent application of mind, invocation of revisionary provisions by CIT unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that granting “call option” is not an activity of rendering service. Thus, appellant has wrongly been held to have been a service provider while receiving “call option fee”.
ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge the onus cast upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the AEs to apply the technology independently. Thus, technical service provided to AEs not taxable.
ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information from NFAC and NFAC failed to examine the nature of transaction and passed order in perfunctory manner.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty and revocation of customs broker license justified as customs broker abetted the illegal export and also failed to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018.
