Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form 10B is condonable since genuine hardship is faced by the petitioner and there is sufficient material on record proving the same. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Thus, a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued at Kolkata. Applying the principle of forum convenience, it would be appropriate if the petitioner was relegated to availing of the remedies at Kolkata.
Uttarakhand High Court held that order is invalid since the same is passed invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] after the same was omitted on 8th October 2004.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money not tenable in absence of cross-examination and any corroborative evidence on record. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Bombay High Court held that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the assessee was required to pay 5% of the receipt of the assessee and not on 5% of the gross advertising bills. Accordingly, infrastructure fee deduction restricted to 5% of receipt.
ITAT Mumbai held that head office expenditure incurred outside India exclusively for the Indian branches does not fall within the ambit of section 44C of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Patna High Court held that extended period of limitation of five years under proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in as much as transactions were not disclosed in ST-3 and relevant information were not provided to taxing authority.
ITAT Rajkot held that the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been issued without obtaining the approval as prescribed under amended provision of section 151 of the Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Patna High Court held that order passed by the State Authority sustained since that there is no violation of principles of natural justice much less any violation of the statutory provisions as contained in sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST/ BGST Act, 2017.
The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reasons i.e., abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period.
