ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the basis of entries found in the seized diary without any corroborative evidence and without any independent enquiry by AO is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition made by AO is deleted.
Delhi High Court held that IFCI Limited (Lender) is required to release the shares from the pledge as and when the loan is repaid by the borrower. Accordingly, Court directed IFCI to release the pledge within a period of six weeks.
ITAT Raipur held that due to non-response for assessee if addition of income is done as Form 26AS then obviously TDS credit available in Form 26AS needs also to be allowed. Thus, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act not justified since value adopted by the DVO and actual purchase price declared by the assessee falls within the tolerance limit of 10%. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand for IGST on ‘lithium-ion batteries’ at the rate of 18%, however, demand for interest set aside since section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act incorporated interest only with effect from 16.08.2024.
Karnataka High Court held that entertainment tax and service tax are independent of each other. Thus, for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax, the ‘amount received or receivable’ cannot include service tax component.
NCLAT Delhi held that in absence of both disbursements directly to Corporate Debtor and default, attempt to invoke proceedings u/s. 7 of IBC unsustainable. Thus, since CIRP was fraudulent and malicious, dismissal u/s. 65 of IBC upheld.
The law being the one declared and enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Sterling Agro particularly the consideration of the doctrine of “forum convenience”.
Adjudicating Authority admitted the application filed by Sri. Chandy John Samuel & Others against the Corporate Debtor u/s.7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the assessment as framed by Assessing Officer International Taxation is bad-in-law.
