Himachal Pradesh High Court held that pending tax in respect of vehicles purchased in auction is to be paid by the auction purchaser. Also held that there is no equity in taxation law and law would prevail in case of conflict between law and equity.
ITAT Delhi held that software expense has not given any benefit of enduring nature and hence the same is not capital in nature. Accordingly, software expense allowed as revenue expenditure.
The petitioner had entered into an agreement for civil works to be undertaken for the project with a company known as Al Fara’a Infra Projects Private Limited vide an agreement dated 27.4.2016.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) inspite of declining to condone the delay considered and decided the matter on merits means that CIT(A) has impliedly condoned the delay involved in the appeal.
NCLAT Delhi held that State Tax Department is secured creditor under section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] hence resolution plan approved without considering the same is in violation of statutory provision.
Madras High Court held that order passed under GST against the petitioner, however, without granting an opportunity of personal hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order is inclined to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of club expenditure on the basis of nomenclature of the expenditure without demonstrating it as non-business expenditure not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the club expenditure is allowed as business expenditure.
CESTAT Delhi held that since Assembly Front imported qualifies as ‘Display Assembly’ used in manufacture of cellular mobile phones, the same would be entitled to exemption from duty of customs under clause 6(a)(iv) of the Customs Notification 57/2017 dated 30.06.2017.
Patna High Court held that order is liable to be set aside since authority has failed to determine liability within prescribed period of one year u/s. 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act without any justifiable reasons. Accordingly, order set aside and demands quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of bonafide error in ITR is not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed and benefit granted.
