Delhi High Court held the issuance of notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act post issuance of notice under section 28(1) on similar factual matrix is bad in law. Thus, subsequent notice issued u/s. 28(4) is set aside.
Delhi High Court held that before undertaking a benchmarking of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion [AMP expenses], it was incumbent upon the TPO to have found that an international transaction had, in fact, occurred. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
On an application filed u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Corporate Debtor – Lavasa Corporation Limited was admitted to insolvency resolution process by order dated 30.08.2018.
NCLAT Delhi held that post approval of resolution plan both by CoC and the adjudicating authority, it cannot be reopened on the basis of claims being belatedly agitated by the appellant. Thus, admission of claim rightly rejected by adjudicating authority.
The appellant/writ petitioner was under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of depreciation in respect of 3G spectrum charges is not justified. Accordingly, depreciation on 3G spectrum charges allowed under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that order passed without granting an opportunity of being heard is passed against the principles of natural justice and accordingly, is liable to be quashed. Thus, petition is allowed and orders are quashed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that mere statement recorded during the search cannot be treated as incriminating document and hence addition on the basis of the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notification no. 9 of 2022, Central Tax (Rate) is effective only from 18.07.2022 and hence refund on account of inverted duty structure is admissible for period prior to 18.07.2022 and restricted for period after 18.07.2022.
Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material is not sustainable since retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
