CESTAT Chennai held that as duty was paid under protest period of limitation of one year envisaged in section 27(1B) of Customs Act 1962 will not apply even if refund claim made out of a consequence of judgment/ decree/ order.
ITAT Mumbai held that Commission to bank on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards is not liable to TDS under section 194H of Act.
NCLAT Chennai held that CIRP plan not approved by minimum 66% of the Committee of Creditors is considered to be failed Resolution Plan and on submission of such failed Resolution Plan the Adjudicating Authority will initiate Liquidation Process.
Karnataka High Court held that Open Purchase Orders are only standing offers and do not constitute a confirmed ‘Agreement to sell’ and movement of goods are mere stock transfers.
HC held that there is no change in legal position i.e. scope and ambit of intermediary services under service tax regime vis-a-vis the GST regime hence Master Services Sub-contracting agreement which continues to operate since 2013 cannot be treated differently at different period.
Orissa High Court held that Asst. Commissioner is not competent authority to accord sanction for launching prosecution against the appellant being a tax assistant. Accordingly, any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that the provisions contained in SARFAESI Act will prevail over Rules of 2015. Accordingly, the demand of transfer fee made by the CSIDC is not sustainable in law.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that bail granted as co-morbodities of the petitioner falls in the exception of being sick as carved out in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ITAT Mumbai held that in terms of the provisions of the applicable tax treaty, i.e., Indo-Mauritius tax treaty, and as the provisions of the applicable tax treaty, being more beneficial to the assessee, override the provisions of the domestic law, the taxability of the dividends on the IDRs fails.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty for non-payment of service tax not leviable when the assessee has proved reasonable cause for their bona fide belief of non-payment.
