Madras High Court has instructed NCLT to file detailed counter as NCLT has proceeded to appoint the Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] different from that suggested by Corporate Debtor [CD].
Held that if the transaction value (FOB value) is so high, that the drawback due on the goods exceeds the market value of the goods, then, as per section 76(1) (b) of the Customs Act, no drawback shall be allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that the classification of the goods cannot be said to be one involving suppression of facts and willful mis-statement. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of Customs Act not justified.
Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under Customs Act by Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence based on notification which does not specify any territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable in law.
Karnataka High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing appellate authority to dispose of the matter expeditiously as amount recovered under GST as petitioner alleges that recovery is done adopting coercive and forceful means.
ITAT Bangalore held that cash gifts received from relatives and friends during wedding cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act merely because each donor is not individually verified. Accordingly, addition directed to be deleted.
Madras High Court held that the provisional attachment order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act could not be made a basis to challenge any action that may be taken in future or any order passed towards recovery of loan under the SARFAESI Act.
ITAT Delhi held that order of special audit held to be void ab-initio since due procedure as mandated under the provisions of Sec. 142(2A) and Sec. 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act has not been followed.
ITAT Bangalore held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by CIT based on the recommendation of the AO is not maintainable. Accordingly, revisionary order set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of professional fees merely for the reason that notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act remained unserved is not justifiable since assessee has placed various evidences on record. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
