Coca Cola India Inc. Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that final assessment order passed beyond period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) read with section 153 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and hence set aside. Facts: The present adjudication involves a batch of six appeals pertaining to the same […]
Madhya Pradesh High Court grants anticipatory bail in fraudulent GST ITC case, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary and detention harmful to business.
Orrisa High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount refunded with respect to IGST paid on ocean freight. Accordingly, competent authority is directed to pay simple interest @6% per annum on amount of refund.
Madras High Court held that dormant partner cannot be made vicariously liable for benami transaction especially since even the necessary averment to invoke vicarious liability is absent in the complaint. Accordingly, order set aside to that extent.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 9(2) of the CST Act doesn’t create statutory charge on the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, unpaid CST dues are unsecured debt. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Orissa High Court held that legal heir cannot fall within ken of Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 hence proceedings under section 73 of the Finance Act determining service tax after the death of the service provider is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
Delhi High Court held that issues relating to debt and fraud is within the jurisdiction of NCLT to be determined in accordance with IBC. Resultantly, the power of a civil court to entertain the present suit is, therefore, statutorily barred. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary order which set aside eviction order is not sustainable in law. Court also held that using AI tool as aid for filing submission without verifying its content is not acceptable.
ITAT Bangalore held that claiming of amortised upfront fees i.e. 1/5th of the upfront fees paid is not allowable since the entire amount is already claimed as deduction. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue/department is allowed.
