Madras High Court held that works contract services pertaining to railways is covered by Notification 11 of 2017 CGST (RATE) dated 28.06.2017 as amended vide Notification No. 20/2017 dated 22.08.2017, Notification No.8 of 2017 Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and hence concessional tax rate of 12% applicable instead of 18%.
Bombay High Court held that once search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act is the foundation of the case, assessment could be initiated only under section 153A/ 153C. Thus, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court held that recovery proceedings in the matter of applicability of TDS u/s. 192 in case of consultant doctors being employees of hospital is to be kept in abeyance pursuant to pending final disposal of appeal.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that gratuity doesn’t form part of liquidation estate. Hence, entire dues of workers would not come under liquidation assets. Thus, writ dismissed and order directing payment of gratuity upheld.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of resolution plan of appellant justified as CoC deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of the Appellant. Thus, resolution plan with 97% vote share of CoC rightly approved.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) rightly restricted disallowance on account of unexplained bank deposit and withdrawal under section 68 of the Income Tax Act to 0.3% of total Circular Trading Transaction. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ensuring that the sale is recorded in the system and adds a layer of authenticity.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 195 as well as section 40(a)(iii) are not attracted in case of salary paid to staff hired outside India and services were utilised outside India. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that in view of Section 35L of the Central Excise Tax as the question of law involved is regarding the taxability of the service, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and before High Court. Thus, the present appeal is rejected.
