CESTAT Delhi held that interest u/s. 75A is payable at the rate specified in section 27A of the Customs Act from date after expiry of the period of one month of ‘let export order’ to date of payment of drawback. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay in furnishing Form No. 10B is procedural lapse hence it cannot be sole reason for denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, delay in filing 10B condoned and exemption granted.
Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration merely because petitioner has not filed reply to GST notice is not justifiable. Accordingly, order cancelling GST registration set aside and matter restored back for fresh adjudication.
Madras High Court held that passing of ex-parte order and imposing penalty under section 125 of the GST Act is not sustainable since GST notice was uploaded only in the GST portal and not served physically. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
Bombay High Court held that re-assessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law as being violative of provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, order passed u/s. 148A(d) liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating unsecured loan as unexplained credit not justified since assessee has proved identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the credit. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty to be levied on CIF value and cost of freight for transport via air to be restricted to 20% of Free on Board [FOB] value of the goods. Hence, demand of differential duty sustained.
ITAT Lucknow held that deduction under section 80IB and section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act is simultaneously allowable from the net profit. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted and appeal is allowed.
NCLT Mumbai rejected the application u/s. 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] seeking approval of resolution plan since the same didn’t meet all the criteria laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Code read with Regulations 36A and 39 of the CIRP Regulations.
NCLAT Delhi held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] being a time bound matter, refiling delay in appeals is not condonable without any strong and credible reasons. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay in refiling appeal rejected.
