Delhi High Court held that the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 coming into force from 20.10.2008 hence the amendments are not applicable to search conducted prior to effective date.
NCLAT Delhi held that as there exists financial debt and default, application u/s 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is duly admissible.
ITAT Hyderabad held that in absence of any substantial proceeding or collateral proceedings pending before AO, AO was right in not entertaining the application for rectification filed by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court dismissed the review petition and directed the ED (Enforcement Directorate) to continue the investigation in the recruitment scam in municipality.
ITAT Pune held that it is settled legal position that interest on (Non-Performing Assets) NPAs cannot be taxed on accrual basis.
ITAT Delhi held that conditions for the eligibility of claim u/s 80IC in the case of a new industrial undertaking stands satisfied as new firm acquired new plant & machinery which was not previously used.
ITAT Delhi held that considering the bonafide and genuine transaction, reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act, exist in the case of the assessee for not complying with the provision of section 269SS and 269T, and therefore, penalty u/s 271D and 271E not leviable.
Madras High Court held that issuance of communication to pay penalty amount within prescribed period, despite of interim orders of division bench directing customs department not to take coercive steps, is untenable in law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that construction services and other services which are necessary for the renting of the business falls in the definition of ‘input service’ as provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per paragraph 3.2 of the Instruction no. 3/2016 dated 10th March 2016, cases selected for scrutiny on a TP risk parameter has to be referred to TPO after obtaining approval from PCIT/ CIT. Non-complying with the instruction renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.