Delhi High Court held that Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 is not ultra vires to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Chennai remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication as appellant couldn’t obtain specific documents due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Bombay High Court held that jurisdiction to assess/ reassess u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act in respect of unabated/ completed assessments without any incriminating material found during the search unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition by invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as liability reflected as outstanding in books of accounts and there is no evidence that such liability has ceased during the year.
ITAT Chennai held that in case the assessee claims depreciation on the new asset, then, it cannot claim investment allowance under Section 32AC of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that transaction not recorded at the time of survey qualify as unrecorded transactions, however, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and hence invoking deeming provisions of section 69-69D of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from background screening provided by the assessee to its customers in India cannot be regarded as Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA and hence not taxable in India.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand under Clause (i) of Rule 6(3) i.e. payment of 5%/10% of the value of exempted goods unjustified as appellant rightly availed the option of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 i.e. reversal of proportionate cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods.
NCLT Ahmedabad approved the resolution plan submitted by M/s. GCCL Infrastructure and Projects Limited (Corporate Debtor) as resolution plan has provisions of its effective implementation.
NCLAT Chennai held that any kind of settlement is between the Parties and no settlement can be directed by way of an Order under the Provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC, 2016).
