Supreme Court held that the court is powerless to modify award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award. Accordingly, High Court has no reason to interfere with the arbitrator’s finding on interest accrued and payable.
NCLAT Chennai held that dues under ‘Central Excise Act, 1944’ would have first charge only after the dues under the Provisions of the Code are recovered. Accordingly, application against approved Resolution Plan dismissed as Resolution Plan meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the Code.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on sells of pre-paid SIM at discounted price to the distributors. Further, as no TDS deductible, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as the ownership of the land on which development rights were conferred remain vested with the landowners hence the assessee did not get the right over the income as per accrual accounting system as provided under the provisions of section 145 of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of lender duly proved.
ITAT Surat held that seized jewellery within the permissible limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No 1916 dated 11.05.1994 couldn’t be treated as undisclosed jewellery. Accordingly, addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded by an Authority who was not having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee is unsustainable in law and accordingly the entire reassessment proceeding is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that provision of Sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in respect of cash deposited which have been duly recorded in the books of account and had already been declared income in the return of income filed by the assessee.
Delhi High Court held that no additional concession could be included in BIFR [Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction] by the Income Tax Department without any extension or modification of the Scheme.
CESTAT Allahabad held that in terms of rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in case appellant doesn’t appeal when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, dismiss the appeal for default.
