Kerala High Court held that levy of cess on the cinema tickets under section 3C of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally valid. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Lucknow held that delay of 4 days erroneously calculated as delay of 551 days by CIT(A). Accordingly, directed CIT(A) to consider request of condonation and if found appropriate to grant opportunity of being heard.
Delhi High Court held that the unlocking/activation of the mobile phone merely makes the mobile phone more usable in the destination country and the same would therefore not constitute “taken into use” under proviso to Rule 3 of Duty Drawback Rules.
NCLAT Delhi held that invocation of guarantee subsequent to initiation of CIRP cannot be the base for any claim to be admitted in the CIRP. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order passed by adjudicating authority set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that Liquidator is jurisdictionally empowered to proceed with private sale of Corporate Debtor by adopting Swiss Challenge Mechanism. Thus, adjudicating authority didn’t commit any error in allowing application filed by Liquidator.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 69A towards cash deposits during demonetization deleted since cash deposit was made out of earlier withdrawals. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the assessee is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, reassessment notice u/s. 148 set aside.
Smt. Syeda Rahimunnisa and Syed Hyder Hussaini are wife and husband whereas the respondent no. 1(a) to 1(f) are the legal heirs of one late Haji Mian being mother, wife, sons and daughters respectively.
After pronouncement of the Judgment of this Court, the petitioner stopped paying IGST on ocean freight in respect of the CIF contracts and also claimed the refund of the IGST already paid on the ocean freight on the basis of the said Judgment.
In Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, it is held that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the AO has passed the assessment order would have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 260A of the Act.
