ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act towards bogus purchases cannot be sustained merely for failure on the part of 3rd party in not responding to the summons. Addition set aside since genuineness of transaction proved.
Held that the AO seeks to disallow expenses on account of doubting the genuineness for the reason that the same were not incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the petitioner’s business.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that matter regarding rejection of registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act remitted back to file of CIT(E) with direction to explain the fulfillment of conditions as stipulated u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)-Item B of the Act.
Supreme Court held that demand notice under section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] can be served upon corporate debtor through its Key Managerial Personnel. Accordingly, rejecting section 9 petition on technical ground is incorrect and not sustainable.
ITAT Nagpur held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act came into statute by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i.e., A.Y.2014-15. Accordingly, provisions cannot be made applicable to date of agreement before 01.04.2014.
Patna High Court held that since the investigation is going on and is in a nascent stage, any interference in the seizure proceedings would have the effect of hampering and stifling proper investigation and adjudication. Accordingly, writ disposed off.
Madras High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the CGST Act but within period prescribed in terms of section 16(5) of CGST Act is eligible. Accordingly, order quashing ITC set aside.
Supreme Court held that engineering and technical service fee/ charges paid to local agent of foreign supplier constitute an integral condition of sale of imported goods and hence includible in the assessable value of imported goods.
Allahabad High Court held that bail granted to accused involved in passing on of fraudulent Input Tax Credit under GST considering the ground of parity, since regular bail granted to other co-accused involved in the matter.
Delhi High Court held that the authorities are legally obligated to conclude the adjudication with due expedition, thus an inordinate and unexplained delay on behalf of the authorities would constitute sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, petition allowed.
