Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notification no. 9 of 2022, Central Tax (Rate) is effective only from 18.07.2022 and hence refund on account of inverted duty structure is admissible for period prior to 18.07.2022 and restricted for period after 18.07.2022.
Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material is not sustainable since retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 returns should also be considered in case the Input Tax Credit (ITC) not reflected in GSTR-3B. Accordingly, matter restored for re-adjudication by considering GSTR-9 return.
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act is allowable inspite of certain errors while filing form 10B since the claim is supported by audited financials, revised audit report and revised computation.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted in as much as fresh investment is made out of sufficient own interest free funds in the shape of reserve and capital.
NCLT Delhi held that resolution plan of corporate debtor Dev Versha Publication Private Limited submitted by resolution professional is approved since the same was approved by 100% voting share of CoC.
Bombay High Court held that Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund is a deemed dealer as per Explanation to section 2(8) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 [MVAT Act] and hence liable for payment of tax.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that fresh assessment is necessary in case of taxability of interest earned from Fixed Deposit from compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land. Thus, matter restored for fresh assessment.
Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
In the present case, recovery or repayment of fraudulent income does not qualify as an allowable expense. Allowing deductions for recovery of fraudulent income would contradict the legislative intent of the Income-tax Act.
