Allahabad High Court held that after one time settlement of loan between borrowers and guarantor with bank, the criminal proceedings against accused [who is neither borrower nor guarantor] having business relation with borrower is liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that appellate jurisdiction against the reassessment order u/s. 39(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT Act], cannot be equated with the jurisdiction conferred u/s. 69 of KVAT Act to seek rectification.
Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.
Madras High Court held that non-granting sufficient time to the petitioner for furnishing reply results into lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be set aside.
Gauhati High Court denied to transfer large scale financial fraud case from Aizawl to Assam since sufficient number of witnesses have been listed by the IO to prove the case and there appears to be no compelling reason to transfer the cases.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant to be treated as secured Financial Creditor based on the registered charge with CERSAI in accordance with Regulation 21 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
Delhi High Court held that payments received for services that may require technical expertise, technical inventions or technology would not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards earning fictitious profit by misusing Client Code Modification Facility merely on the basis of information received from Investigation wing without carrying out independent investigation is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that additions merely on the basis of presumption that assessee had earned undisclosed income without having concrete evidence is not sustainable in law and hence liable to be deleted. Accordingly, action of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that initiated the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act only on the basis of suspicion of involvement in money laundering activity without cogent material brought is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
