Karnataka High Court confirms that secured creditors can recover dues from property before GST claims if their SARFAESI Act charge predates the GST encumbrance, ensuring proper auction proceedings.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Sudhir Gulati (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that DRI are proper officers for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly has been empowered to issue demand notice under section 28. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed. Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the […]
Bombay High Court held that Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exceed mandate of Section 144C(13) or act contrary to Dispute Resolution Panel’s directions. It further ruled that any assessment completed beyond prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) is time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the sale of cybersecurity software does not constitute rendering of technical services. Accordingly, such transactions are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a tax demand raised due to a typographical or inadvertent error, without any malafide intention, is invalid. Tribunal observed that assessee should not suffer unnecessary hardship for bona fide mistakes.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once a moratorium is imposed under IBC, Income Tax Department cannot recover dues from corporate debtor. However, proceedings to determine tax liability may continue under IBC and Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi ruled that IBBI has no authority to issue a general circular under Section 34(4)(b) recommending appointment of insolvency professionals other than IRP/RP as liquidator, reaffirming limits on IBBI’s regulatory powers.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot alter the share valuation method chosen by the assessee under Rule 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if based on no new tangible material. The order clarified that such reopening is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Jabalpur held that additions for unexplained investment in agricultural land cannot be made without proper inquiry into the co-owner’s source of funds. The case has been restored for de novo consideration.
