ITAT Delhi held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act allowed since assessee is able to prove the nature of land as agricultural land based on revenue records and income tax return, wherein, income accepted as agricultural income.
Karnataka High Court held that taxpayer cannot be permitted to retract voluntary disclosed income admitted in return of income filed nearly 14 months after the survey without giving evidence of coercion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking guarantee fee is not justifiable since assessee doesn’t undertake any risk of profit or loss on the said transaction.
Kerala High Court held that provisional release is not contemplated under section 130 of the CGST Act. Also held that continued detention of goods is not legally sustainable, merely because the proceedings u/s. 130 is in progress.
NCLAT Delhi held that post approval of Resolution Plan, the Committee of Creditors [CoC] itself is also bound by its finality and cannot be allowed to tinker with or modify the resolution plan including mechanism of distribution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is not sustainable in absence of cogent, tangible or corroborative evidence linking connection of appellant in fraudulent export by forming a syndicate. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and penalty is set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee for the Insolvency proceeding. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction since revisionary proceedings under section 263 on the same issue was already dropped.
Supreme Court held that simultaneous proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the principal debtor as well as corporate guarantor is maintainable.
