NCLAT Delhi held that any dispute even pending in the arbitration does not in any manner prohibit the financial creditor to take remedy under Section 7. Thus, appeal dismissed and held that application u/s. 7 duly admitted.
Karnataka High Court held that transfer of Set Top Boxes to subscribers amounts to sale within the definition of section 2(29)(d) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and hence sales tax leviable on the same.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment is based on change of opinion since exact entry which was already scrutinised and accepted by department during scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, re-opening u/s. 148 is liable to be quashed.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act].
Karnataka High Court held that TDS is not deductible on payment to non-residents for advertisements in several social medias like Facebook, Amazon Web Services and Rocket Science Group. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that accused convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to grant final opportunity to cross-examine complainant on deposit of 50% of the fine amount before trial court.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits out of the past savings during demonetization being reasonable and as per social standing of the assessee is justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in cash deposits, during demonetization, due to unforeseen circumstances like laxmi pooja and staff vacations post deepavali doesn’t imply fabricated income or an afterthought explanation. Hence, addition liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that mere non-production of director cannot be the ground for making any addition in the hands of assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that activity of lottery distributor doesn’t constitute a service and hence imposition of service tax on distributor of lottery tickets not justifiable. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
