ITAT Raipur restored the matter back to the file of AO in case of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act as the CA certificate submitted was not as per the prescribed form i.e. Form 26A. Post submission of CA certificate in prescribed form, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) will be vacated.
CESTAT Bangalore held that web cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and not under 8525 as web cameras are not digital camera nor it can be considered as a television camera.
Delhi High Court held that payments made under compelling circumstances during the course of search, without ascertaining tax liability and issuance of notice post search, is liable to be refunded back to the taxpayer along with interest.
Delhi High Court held that involuntary reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) during search needs to be refunded to the taxpayer while reserving the right of the GST authorities to proceed against the said taxpayer to the full extent in accordance with law.
Delhi High Court imposed heavy cost for obtaining admission under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category by illicit means. Further, directed to convert the admission under the General Category in place of EWS category.
Delhi High Court granted the bail application in the extortion case concluding that merely because the petitioner has been alleged to be a Hawala Operator, the bail cannot be denied to him.
Bombay High Court held that minority shareholders of Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (BNL) are entitled to get documents related to proceedings by SEBI against BNL. Accordingly, directed to provide the same in terms of Courts order dated 23 October 2023.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of boondi silver and silver jewellary alleging it to be smuggled goods without any evidence to allege that these are third country origin is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that ED is trying to fish out the possible commission of offence relating to sand mining without an existence of proceeds of crime. Accordingly, the enquiry contemplated by the impugned summons is not within the domain or within the authority of the respondent, as per Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002.
Delhi High Court held that while judging as to whether a person is fit and proper to be appointed as an Insolvency Professional his past actions and conduct cannot be ignored. Accordingly, refusal to grant registration as an Insolvency Professional justified as petitioner found guilty of fraudulent practices violating market integrity.
