Madras High Court held that delay of 150 days in filing of GST appeal due to medical issues is genuine and hence liable to be condoned. Accordingly, condones the delay and directs the petitioner to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of agricultural income as unexplained income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as documents evidencing ownership of agricultural land now placed on record. Accordingly, matter remanded back to file of AO for fresh adjudication.
Andhra Pradesh HC held that rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that parallel proceedings for the same periods of the assessment amounts to double taxation and the same is impermissible in law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and assessment order set aside.
Supreme Court held that since the claim was filed, verified and informed to the Successful Resolution Applicant, the claim squarely falls within Clause 18.4(ii) read with Clause 18.4(vi)(a) of the Resolution Plan. Accordingly, possession of residential apartment is directed. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order passed on the basis of consolidated approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act in mechanical manner without application of mind is void-ab-initio and hence assessment is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
DRAT Chennai held that since sale not held in the manner required under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] hence the same is liable to be set aside.
NCLT Cuttack held that a pre-existing dispute cannot be a bar for admission of an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, CIRP application against S.S. Aluminium Private Limited admitted as debt and default established.
Allahabad High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act] is not tenable in law since no findings is recorded which shows that there is fraud or willful mis-statement or suppression of fact to evade payment of tax.
Sikkim High Court held that section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act] doesn’t envisage refund of unutilized ITC for closure of business. Thus, rejection of refund application is within parameters of section 54 and lawful.
