Supreme Court held that vicarious liability couldn’t be attracted under section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely based on the reason that the person was in charge of the company at the time when the offence was committed. Accordingly, criminal complaint quashed.
Delhi High Court held that on account of lack of facts and material particulars, the relief as sought by the petitioner not granted. Concluded that if material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible.
Madras High Court held that clause (xi) to Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act relating to the exclusion of the period taken for handing over seized material to the assessing officer is effective prospectively from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, prior assessment years are held to be barred by limitation.
Held that the entries in the books of account of amalgamating companies prior to amalgamation cannot be part of the additions made under section 153A in the hands of the assessee (i.e. amalgamated company). Accordingly, additions deleted.
Kerala High Court held that person who failed to avail the opportunity granted to him to make submissions cannot complain about the violation of principles of natural justice. Writ not entertained on account of availability of alternative remedy.
Delhi High Court held that as discrepancies in sales figures as well as physical stock not explained, the assessing authority took a fair view in enhancing sales by 10% of net GTO after deducting the stock transfer figure of GTO. Accordingly, levy of tax with interest confirmed.
Madras High Court held that the arriving at taxable turnover arbitrarily without giving particulars of the value of the goods and value of the services untenable under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act).
Jharkhand High Court held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income of an Assessee.
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004 owing to reversal of CENVAT Credit needs to be examined by lower authorities. Accordingly, matter restored back to original authority for fresh determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
