CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit of input services i.e. insurance and authorized service station cannot be denied as services are availed before 01.04.2011 and used for furtherance of business.
Madras High Court held that cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with relevant provision of GST Act not justified since the reason of slowdown in business is genuine. Accordingly, restoration of GST registration ordered.
Madras High Court held that filing of a fresh refund claim in terms of section 27 (1-B) of the Customs Act not required as refund claim was duly filed within limitation of one year from the date of import. Accordingly, writ of petitioner stands allowed.
Delhi High Court held that exemption from Basic Customs Duty [BCD] admissible in case of WAPs import employing either Multiple Input/ Multiple Output (MIMO) or Long Term Evolution (LTE) standards prior to amendment brought vide Finance Act, 2021.
ITAT Delhi held that circle rate couldn’t be applied as the property was sold under distress. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO to determine fair market value of property taking into consideration that the sale was under distress.
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction not entertained as the case involved fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit under GST. Accordingly, petition dismissed and petitioner permitted to file an appeal before appellate authority.
Madras High Court held that withdrawal of appeal under GST by inadvertently mentioning wrong assessment year by the auditor is restored back since the reason provided is found genuine. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that any award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by an interested party is vitiated. Accordingly, ex-parte arbitral award passed is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that only those investments which have yielded exempt income during the year should be considered for computing disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the IT Rules. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(via) due to inadvertent mistake of claiming exemption under section 12A instead of 10(23C)(via) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption granted u/s. 10(23C)(via) as requisite Form 10BB already filed.
