Bombay High Court held that an agreement for providing manpower to perform maintenance services is not a contract of sale but is a contract for service under the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
NCLT Delhi held that an amalgamation of a Sole Proprietorship Firm with a Company is not permissible under the law. Thus, Merger and Amalgamation of sole proprietorship firm and company is not possible u/s 232 of Companies Act, 2013.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of change in law/ facts, advance ruling pronounced by the authority shall be binding on the application and also on the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs and the customs authorities subordinate to him.
Bombay High Court held that action of the department in selling the gold during the pendency of the appeal is illegal and unconstitutional.
Delhi High Court held that the period of limitation for cases covered u/s. 49(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 would be six months from the date on which the stamp paper was spoiled. Accordingly, refund of 90% stamp duty directed.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review and accordingly, the material as has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 cannot be a sufficient ground to resort to reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that without pointing out any specific defect in the audited books of accounts, AO cannot and should not make any estimated addition. Accordingly, such estimated addition deleted.
Bombay High Court held that benefit of exemption under notification no. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 available to loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of “agricultural produce” namely “tea”.
Madras High Court held that order passed without granting video conference hearing as sought by the petitioner is unsustainable as it is clearly violation of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act on loans and advances given to subsidiary company unjustified as investment in subsidiary is purely for commercial expediency.
