ITAT Mumbai held that no additions or disallowances can be made u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the search on a third person.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of refund application on allegation of fake credit availed by the supplier is unsustainable in absence of any establishment of non-supply of goods from the said supplier.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
Delhi High Court held that whether condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is complied or not is required to be considered by the Customs Authorities and Customs Authorities are not bounded by the decision of DGCA.
Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed acceptance of personal bond instead of bank guarantee, as condition for stay of assessment order, pending disposal of appeal in VAT demand matter.
Bombay High Court held that being in retail business of electronic appliances, cash deposits from various places cannot be doubted be considered suspicious transactions. Accordingly, cash deposits in crores cannot lead to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Re-opening unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that re-assessment proceedings, in absence of any failure to disclose any material fact and without any new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing of the original assessment order, is unsustainable.
NCLT Delhi ordered initiation of CIRP as petition filed u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Financial Creditor is complete in all respect and it is clearly established that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt more than the minimum amount stipulated u/s. 4 (1) of the Code
ITAT Delhi held that there is no copyright on live events, and therefore, the fee received towards live transmission cannot be taxed as royalty in terms of Section 9(l)(vi).
Madras High Court held that Government Order No. 339/Public (Law Officers) fixing fees for the law officers is extremely irrational. Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.
