Gujarat High Court held that notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the IBC is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 138(B) of the Customs Act doesn’t provide unfettered right in all cases for cross examination of relevant person. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of.
ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loan from related party cannot be sustained since identity, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction proved. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of condition in case of provisional release of seized goods is discretionary and hence directed furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of 30% of the differential duty instead of 130%.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that time permit set out under section 73(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act] is mandatory and any violation of that time period renders show cause notice bad-in-law.
Madras High Court held that the Baggage Rule, 2016 will apply only to the baggage and not to the jewellery worn in person. Accordingly, petition is allowed and confiscation order quashed.
ITAT Raipur held that order of transfer of case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of being heard to appellant is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of CIT(A).
Kerala High Court held that court cannot interfere with order of settlement commission if challenge is merely that Settlement Commission has chosen to take one of two possible views that can be legally taken in respect of an issue. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for delay in uploading audit report set aside as reasonable cause shown and there was only technical breach without any loss to exchequer of the Government.
Gujarat High Court held that the show cause notice issued for evasion of GST by DGGI shall be adjudicated by competent authority. Thus, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction of competent authority. Hence, writ not entertained.
