Supreme Court upheld the judgement of High Court and held that in case of execution of a works contract through a sub-contractor, the sub-contractor was liable to pay tax under the VAT Act and therefore the payment made by the main contractor to the sub-contractor was not liable to be included in the taxable consideration of the main contractor as this would lead to double taxation.
Gujarat High Court held that assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of personal hearing is not tenable. Accordingly, the order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
NCLT Mumbai held that non-payment of part of debt when it becomes due and payable amounts to default. Thus, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] duly admitted since there exists financial debt, exceeding threshold limit, and the same is in default.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor [Vibrant Content Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted since debt and default stand established.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is admitted since Financial Creditor discharged its burden of proof by demonstrating the existence of a financial debt and default in payment of the financial debt by the Corporate Debtor [Devashray Papers (India) LLP].
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Bombay High Court held that assessee couldn’t be put to considerable disadvantage due to belated advice given by CA. Further, in case delay is not condoned, grave hardship will be suffered as genuine losses will not be permitted to be carried forward. Accordingly, delay in filing return condoned.
ITAT Mumbai held that in absence of any contrary inference by Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] in the TP analysis, ad hoc disallowance cannot be restored towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that non-granting of personal hearing in spite of being requested is clear violation and breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order quashed and remanded to AO for fresh de novo order.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by admitting application u/s. 7 justifiable since application duly filed within 3 years of ‘Promise to Pay’ under section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
