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.
Delhi High Court held that Godaddy.com (appellant) had granted rights in or transferred the right to use its domain to a third party. Therefore, the fee received by Godaddy.com for registration of domain name of third parties cannot be treated as royalty.
Patna High Court held that penalty is imposable under section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Bihar VAT Act) on account of clerical mistake in mentioning of invoice number in SUVIDHA Form.
Bombay High Court held that one cannot tax the amount having not accrued and not been received by the assessee on an assumption and presumption that in the future, the Small Causes Court will at least order the said sum in favour of the Appellant.
Kerala High Court held that Held that the limitation prescribed u/s. 17(D) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act [KGST] would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the high Court had set aside the original assessment and remanded the matter back to redo the assessment.
Kerala High Court held that filing an untrue or incorrect return in view of section 67(1)(d) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT] assumes more rigour in the teeth of the onerous obligation, resulting in the imposition of a penalty. Accordingly, imposition of penalty justified.
Delhi High Court held that refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) permissible as rate of taxes on certain inputs being higher than tax chargeable on the output supply.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere charging of guarantee fees for services by the assessee trust ipso facto is not sufficient to invoke the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, that too without establishing that the object and purpose of the assessee is profit motive.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings will be invalid where once a query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter AO didnt made any addition in the assessment order.
