CESTAT Delhi held that that refund has to be granted to the respondent as the order for amendment in the Bills of Entry had attained finality.
Delhi High Court held that upward adjustment advertising, marketing and promotion expenses (AMP) rejected as reimbursement of AMP expenses incurred by respondent (Sony India) on behalf of its AE was at arm’s length.
Kerala High Court held that bail application of petitioner involved in tax evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crores on allegation of supply of goods without issuance of invoice rejected as such serious allegations needs thorough investigation.
ITAT Delhi held that incentive / subsidy given by state Governments on account of development of new Multiplexes in the state is capital receipt.
Delhi High Court dismissed condonation of delay in filing of appeals by revenue in absence of any sufficient cause shown. Court observed that no action is taken against the officers who sit on files and do nothing under presumption that the court would condone delay in routine.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess is not allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening after expiry of 4 years, without establishing any failure on part of the assessee to disclose any material facts necessary for its assessment, is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
Calcutta High Court held that registered person is entitled to Input Tax Credit only if conditions prescribed u/s. 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are fulfilled. It includes time limit imposed via section 16(4). Accordingly, held that section 16(4) is not violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court held that department should permit to correct any bonafide, inadvertent error incurred while furnishing details in Form GSTR-1 particularly when department is aware that there is no loss of revenue.
NCLT Hyderabad Held that Airport Authority of India being a statutory body created under Airport Authority of India Act, 1944, does not come under the definition of ‘corporate person’ u/s. 3(7) of IBC. Therefore, proceedings under IBC could not have been initiated against them.
