Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
Supreme Court held that section 64(d) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 restricts Multi-State Co-operative Society investment only to entities in the same line of business. Accordingly, Multi-State Co-operative Society is ineligible to submit resolution plan for corporate debtor which doesn’t operate in same line of business.
Supreme Court held that borrower doesn’t possess any legal right to a personal hearing by banks before classifying their account as fraud account. Accordingly, the civil appeal is partly allowed.
ITAT Agra held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act before setting off carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee succeeds on this ground.
Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without serving of statutory notice. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO to serve notice u/s. 148 as not hit by limitation u/s. 149.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act treating receipts and income from sale of agro and Gaushala products as commercial without examining the receipts being incidental and ancillary is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored to file of CIT(E).
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that with respect to benchmarking of export transaction, foreign Associated Enterprise [AE] can be chosen as tested party since AE possess the least complex functional analysis. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment not justifiable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that amount deposited during the course of investigation is not voluntary payment but it was deposit made under mistaken notion and hence doesn’t amount to duty. Accordingly, interest is eligible on amount refunded.
