Delhi High Court held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. Accordingly, judgement of DRAT upheld and petition dismissed.
ITAT Indore held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained deposit is unsustainable in law since the nature and source of the deposit is sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and addition u/s. 69A is deleted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax demand order set aside since show cause notice [SCN] and adjudication order not duly served upon the appellant. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that no demand of service tax can be made simply based on the difference between the Balance Sheet and the ST-3 returns without providing any explanation about the nature of service on which service tax is payable. Thus, order is set aside to that extent.
Madras High Court held that countervailing duty [CVD] is not leviable on vessels that are imported into India prior to notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 which is later converted from foreign-run to coastal run. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that Look Out Circular is quashed since the investigation is going on and no interim report is submitted. Thus, as on date there is no cognizable case initiated against petitioner under the Indian Penal Code.
ITAT Pune held that penalty not leviable under section 270A of the Income Tax Act since show cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb u/s. 270A(9) under which the penalty was imposed. Accordingly, penalty is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that amendment/ rectification of inadvertent error in GST returns [Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B] is permissible if no loss to revenue would be caused. Accordingly, petition is allowed and returns are permitted to be amended.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, AO directed to recompute book profit after allowing indexation.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of bad debts claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is not justifiable if offered as income in any year. Accordingly, AO directed to verify that amount for which bad debts have claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) were indeed offered as income for the said years.
