Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
Kerala High Court held that Bank is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to senior citizen who has provided Form 15H. Accordingly, Bank cannot be considered as assessee in default for non-deduction of such TDS.
ITAT Chennai held that the matter of buyback through High Court approved scheme of arrangment remitted back for verification of NAV valuation under rule 11UA and also to analyize applicability of section 115QA. Accordingly, appeal restored back.
ITAT Jaipur held that claim on account of provision of future expense is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as per matching principle of accountancy. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act not sustained in absence of proof of mens rea since establishing mens-rea is also a prerequisite to attribute attempt. Accordingly, penalty imposed is deleted.
Karnataka High Court held that order invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and blocking of Electronic Credit ledger without granting pre-decisional hearing and passing of order without containing independent or cogent reasons is impermissible in law. Accordingly, order quashed.
Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that non-filling of registration number in Part-B in e-way bill is curable defect and the same would not invalidate or render illegal the e-way bill. Accordingly, levy of penalty u/s. 129 of the KGST Act is not tenable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards cash deposit during demonetization period is not sustainable since the same is redeposit of cash which was withdrawn for making salary payment or incurring any expenditure. Accordingly, the addition is deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
