ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act not justified since value adopted by the DVO and actual purchase price declared by the assessee falls within the tolerance limit of 10%. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand for IGST on ‘lithium-ion batteries’ at the rate of 18%, however, demand for interest set aside since section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act incorporated interest only with effect from 16.08.2024.
Karnataka High Court held that entertainment tax and service tax are independent of each other. Thus, for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax, the ‘amount received or receivable’ cannot include service tax component.
NCLAT Delhi held that in absence of both disbursements directly to Corporate Debtor and default, attempt to invoke proceedings u/s. 7 of IBC unsustainable. Thus, since CIRP was fraudulent and malicious, dismissal u/s. 65 of IBC upheld.
The law being the one declared and enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Sterling Agro particularly the consideration of the doctrine of “forum convenience”.
Adjudicating Authority admitted the application filed by Sri. Chandy John Samuel & Others against the Corporate Debtor u/s.7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the assessment as framed by Assessing Officer International Taxation is bad-in-law.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice issued u/s. 95(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] when sent to last known address as stipulated in Guarantee Deed is valid service of notice under established legal principles. Accordingly, appeals dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that passing of order by CIT(A) without considering adjournment request of the assessee is not justifiable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that confiscation of gold set aside due to non-recording of any statement of the relevant person coupled with finding of department being based on assumption and presumption.
