CESTAT Mumbai held that legality or admissibility of credit can only be question to the Input Service Distributor, since at the receiver end no detail would be available regarding the nature of services.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal filed under section 7 of IBC becomes infructuous as recommendation of CoC to liquidate the company is pending for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided by an active party to the joint venture is not covered within Business Support Service. Work was assigned on the basis of co-developer and not an agent. Accordingly, service tax not payable.
CESTAT Delhi held that services by way of carrying out any process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, falls under the negative list and is exempted from the levy of service tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the purpose of determination of limitation the relevant date in case of services availed will be challans showing the date of payment within one year.
Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides an able machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, the Assessee is not permitted to abandon with the machinery and invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Pune denied exemption of capital gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by applying principle of fraud as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were construed with the intention to bring undisclosed income into books of accounts.
NCLAT Delhi held that Section 96(1)(b) of I&B Code cannot be read to mean that any future liability or obligation is contemplated to be stayed. Thus, stay of proceedings under Section 19(2) and Section 66-67 is not contemplated under Section 96(1)(b)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (here Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (here, Indian Penal Code). Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked.
CESTAT Mumbai held that provisions of rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable only when the manufacturer is engaged in both manufacture of dutiable and final product. It is not applicable in case of by-products.
