Kerala High Court granted one more opportunity to upload Form GST ITC-01 since the form was not uploaded due to technical glitches in GST portal. Accordingly, writ petition allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance of the opportunities granted to the assessee. Accordingly, cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the assessee and matter remanded back to CIT(A).
NCLAT Delhi held that petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 admissible when interest amount demanded by Financial Creditor is more than INR 1 Crore since financial debt means a debt alongwith interest.
ITAT Jaipur remanded the matter back to the file of AO since ex-parte order was passed due to non-appearance/ non-furnishing of response since assessee died during pendency of the proceedings.
ITAT Bangalore held that since assessee filed voluminous documents in paperbooks during the course of hearing before ITAT, the matter is remitted back to CIT(A) for consideration of documents furnished by the assessee and fresh decision as per law.
ITAT Surat held that employee’s contribution towards PF and ESI cannot be allowed if it is deposited after the due dates under those Acts but before filing of return. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) confirmed and appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the work in the nature of laying down of “Optical Fibre Cable Network” to benefit the defence forces for better communication is exempt from service tax since the ultimate beneficiary of the service is Government of India.
Delhi High Court held that Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method when reseller imports goods from its Associated Enterprise (AE) and the goods are sold in the same condition without any value addition.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 duly imposed since the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry (BOE).
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) of operational creditor not maintainable due to pre-existing dispute. Further, there was no requirement for the Adjudicating Authority to go under the skin of dispute
