NCLAT Delhi held that admitting application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for default in payment of operational debt justified in the absence of any credible or plausible pre-existing dispute.
Supreme Court held that cognizance of the offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the public servant without obtaining previous sanction under section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 untenable in law.
Delhi High Court held that keeping in abeyance refund order by exercising powers conferred u/s. 108 of the CGST Act merely on the basis of intelligence regarding wrongful availment of ITC unjustified since pre-requisite conditions for invoking section 108 not satisfied.
A Lease Deed was executed between the appellant and Skol Breweries Limited for renting of land, building, plant and machinery by the appellant to Skol. The appellant discharged service tax liability under the head “renting of immovable property” services.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by AO disregarding the fact that the same was passed on non-existing entity.
The petitioner – Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., has called in question the correctness of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from the sale of software licenses is business income and the same cannot be taxed in India in absence of Permanent Establishment and in terms of India-Austria DTAA.
CESTAT Chennai held that a proforma invoice is in the nature of a quotation or offer and hence does not constitute valid basis for enhancement of value of the imported goods. Enhancement set aside since there is no evidence to show that there is flow back of amount.
Karnataka High Court held that the appellate authority under POSH Act, 2013, despite the absence of specific provision for granting of interim order, would have the power to consider the interim application.
CESTAT Chennai held that denying substantial benefits only for technical errors would not do justice to the appellant. Thus, technical error in Certificate of Origin cannot result in denial of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD).
