Gujarat High Court held that since for the year under consideration, there is no retention of income but in fact there is a deficit of 7%, hence the question of denying the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act wouldn’t arise. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that recovery of interest amount which became due u/s. 50(1) of the CGST Act can be done only after issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01D. Accordingly, order quashed with direction to department to initiate proceedings by issuance of notice in Form GST DRC-01D.
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank can proceed against one or all personal guarantors of Corporate Debtor u/s. 95. Merely because bank proceeded against only one personal guarantor cannot be any reason to reject any application u/s. 95 of IBC.
ITAT Pune held that application for registration u/s. 12A r.w.s 12AB of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for non-obtaining of prior permission of Charity Commissioner for loans since the same is procedural lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(E) set aside and registration u/s. 12A r.w.s. 12AB granted.
ITAT Mumbai held that issue of whether the land is an agricultural land or not needs more verification since department has not tested required conditions as prescribed u/s. 2(14)(iii). Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO.
ITAT Delhi held that the LTCG derived from exclusive transfer of equity shares and units of equity oriented mutual funds only is held eligible for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, ground raised by the revenue stands allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imported tugboats are not machinery, equipment or tools. It is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8904 and hence benefit of notification no. 72/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 not admissible.
Madras High Court held that assessee can raise additional ground of validity of reassessment proceedings in terms of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, ITAT justified in accepting the ground that reassessment was change of opinion.
