CESTAT Chennai held that denial of DEPB scrip benefit to innocent transferee importers of fraudulently obtained licence by original licence holder not justifiable since licence was not cancelled by appropriate authority at the time of import of goods. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
Rajasthan High Court held that amendment to notification dated 10.07.2019 made vide notification dated 24.02.2021 by adding new category ‘Sleeper Bus’ is valid. Accordingly, levy of motor vehicle tax on ‘Sleeper Bus’ upheld.
ITAT Bangalore held that SanDisk India [Western Digital India] is not a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment [DAPE] of SanDisk Ireland and hence the assessee income is not chargeable to tax in India.
NCLAT Chennai held that as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] there is no provision to ‘provisionally’ constitute the Committee of Creditors [CoC]. Thus, CoC once constituted is final and cannot be revised by IRP.
Calcutta High Court held that DRAT order dismissing appeal of MSME upheld since MSME did not avail of the facilities and allowed the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 to run its course, then it is not entitled to any protection.
Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application since the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled. Also, there is sufficient material collected by ED to show that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
Madras High Court held that option of admitted liability inadvertently not changed to disputed liability and hence petitioner was unable to file appeal. Accordingly, liberty is granted to file an appeal after depositing 15% of disputed tax amount.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A)-NFAC has dismissed the appeal without rendering any findings on the merits of the case, which is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order of CIT(A)-NFAC is set aside, and matter is restored to the file of CIT(A)-TP for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Explanation to section 14A of the Income Tax Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to assessment years preceding the amendment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that the benefit of working capital adjustment while computing the ALP has also not been borne in mind hence matter restored to the file of TPO/ AO for fresh determination in accordance with law.
