NCLAT Delhi held that no authorized correspondence brought on record which states that there was agreement between appellant and corporate debtor to cost incurred by appellant would be settled against license fee payable to Corporate Debtor. Thus, argument of appellant rejected.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of CIT(A) order was ex-parte without hearing the assessee and there is sufficient cause shown by assessee in not attending hearings as per opportunities granted by CIT(A). Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A).
Delhi High Court held that there was no requirement to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the Arbitrator and notice sent by invoking arbitration agreement u/s. 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid invocation.
Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation of four gold bangles without even permitting payment of any duty, redemption fine or penalty seems to be an extreme measure hence detained gold bangles being personal jewellery are directed to be released.
Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition inspite of availability of an alternate remedy since there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, writ allowed and final order of NCLT set aside.
Orissa High Court held that challenge against reversal of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under GST not entertained due to availability of alternative remedy to appeal before appellate authority under section 107 of GST Act. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Madras High Court held that petitioners are not entitled for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation since gold imported beyond the permissible limit of 1 Kg is to be treated as prohibited items as per the provisions of section 2(33) of the Customs Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that mere titular ownership of bank account is not conclusive. Thus, addition u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained without proper inquiry into identity of actual beneficiary of cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of loss alleging participation in price rigging cannot be sustained since nothing is brought on record to demonstrate involvement of assessee in price rigging. Accordingly, claim of loss allowed.
Gauhati High Court held that Summary of SCN issued in Form GST DRC-01 doesn’t substitute proper SCN. Thus, mere issuance of summary of SCN is not valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.
