Karnataka High Court held that re-adjustment of ALP without passing a Draft Assessment Order as required under section 144C of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is void ab initio.
Delhi High Court held that CESTAT does not have the power to admit appeal without the pre-deposit. However, since this is not a rare case necessitating interference, this court has not granted waiver from pre-deposit.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that petition cannot be entertained since the inordinate delay, in approaching the court, has not been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, writ in GST matter dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit during demonetization not justified since assessee has sufficiently explained that the said deposit is from earlier withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Panaji held that, in order to verify violation provisions of section 18(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies (Amendment)Act 2014, AO is directed to verify list of all members of society and examine whether associate members exceeds 15% of total membership or not.
DRAT Chennai held that measures taken under SARFAESI Act for sale of property is not in accordance with also since affixture of the impugned sale notice was not proved by the appellant bank and valuation of the property was not properly done.
Madras High Court held that matter of leviability of 2% TDS on reimbursable expenses in case of Customs House Agent [CHA] is remanded back since assessee failed to produce supporting documentary evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that multiple residential units on same floor is construed as single residential house for purpose of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 54 allowed and addition deleted.
Delhi High Court held that Customs Broker failure to oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods imported with intention to re-export leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear violation. However, suspension of license for 13 months is sufficient.
NCLT Chennai held that as per section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of guarantor is coextensive with that of the Borrower. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against Corporate Guarantor admitted.
