NCLAT Delhi held that insolvency resolution process against co-borrower justified as obligation of the Co-Borrower is coextensive and coterminous with that of the Primary Borrower.
The Commissioner holding that the appellant had resorted to deliberate misdeclaration and utilised the carnet documents to clear the vehicle without payment of duty, held that the car was liable for confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imposition of penalty on allegation of foreign origin gold set aside as department failed to examine the documents nor have given any specific findings on the defence of the assessee. Thus, order set aside and matter remanded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act on the right to collect toll on the roads developed on BOT basis is not eligible.
Kerala High Court held that the “interest income” on the short-term deposits of the funds infused by the Government are in the nature of “capital receipt” and not “revenue receipt” and hence the same are not taxable as ‘income from other sources’.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that it is settled law that for the fault of the counsel, the litigant should not be made to suffer. Thus, petition allowed with a suggestion to counsel for the applicant to invest one hour of community service while visiting Mercy Home.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the payment of Management Fee and the License Fee not being relatable to the imported goods and condition precedent to the sale of imported goods are therefore not includible in the transaction value.
Delhi High Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard is unjustified. Accordingly, order cancelling GST registration set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the severance compensation received by the employee is a capital receipt and the same is not chargeable to tax under Section 17(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
