CESTAT Chennai held that a building or its part put up on land and which is used for car parking will get the benefit of the exclusion from levy of Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, refund claim allowed.
Bombay High Court held that validity of circular no. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17 September 2004 cannot be examined vide the present petition as the same is already subject matter of contention in the show cause notice issued to one of the petitioner’s member M/s. Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd. and hence designated officer will adjudicate the same.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb is vague and ambiguous, accordingly, penalty proceedings not sustainable.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of the appellant, to Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) during the process of CIRP, duly rejected as the claim was based on MOU/ agreement which were forged document.
ITAT Delhi held that the income from technical handling services received from ‘International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP) members is not taxable in India as it is covered under Article 8(2) r.w. Article 8(1) of India-France DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from sale of software licenses are not in the nature of royalty income. Also held that, though, such income may be in the nature of business profit, however, no part of which can be attributed to the PE in India.
ITAT Jaipur held that in absence of a valid satisfaction note the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law. Resultantly the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that reliefs prayed for in the Company Petition against ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ could only be adjudicated by a Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which in the present case is the NCLT/NCLAT under Sections 241 & 242 of the Act.
NCLAT Chennai held that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction to initiate insolvency proceedings of Personal Guarantors even when no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Proceedings is pending against Corporate Debtor.
Delhi High Court held that a person who signed a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he had read them or not. Here, the plaintiff has signed the MoU in token of acceptance of the terms thereof and is bound by the terms thereof, including the Arbitration Agreement.
