ITAT Ahmedabad held that notice issued u/s. 274 without specifying ground for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) i.e. whether penalty is imposed for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not justifiable.
Gauhati High Court held that arrest of accused involved in evasion of GST by falsely claiming ITC during investigation without any reason to believe that accused will abscond or disobey summons not justified. Accordingly, accused released on interim bail.
Supreme Court held that the agreement between the oil marketing companies indicates that the price of petroleum products agreed under MoU is not a normal price and, therefore, is not a transaction value. Appeal allowed on the ground of extended period.
NCLT Kolkata held that unsuccessful resolution applicant has no locus to assail resolution plan once the resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors [CoC] unanimously.
NCLAT Delhi held that based on recommendation made by the resolution professional, application under section 95 of IBC, 2016 is admitted. Notably, also held that application under section 95 is preferred within prescribed time limit.
NCLAT Chennai owing to the situation prevailing due to Covid-19, the earnest money should not be permitted to be forfeited, where a subsequent fresh auction has taken place and the property has been sold at a higher price.
Thereafter an order u/s. 73(9) of the KGST Act was passed vide order dated 27.03.2024 whereunder the tax demand together with interest and penalty was made against the petitioner.
Supreme Court held that the reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee would be squarely covered within the meaning of transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Allahabad held that order passed by PCIT without considering the contentions of the assessee is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Thereafter, PCIT called for the assessment records and examined the proceedings. CIT(A) after going through the case records and assessment records took a view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
