ITAT Mumbai held that levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since specific limb of Section 270A(9) leading to under-reporting of income or mis-reporting of income is not specified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed.
Orissa High Court held that auction sale by the bank under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) justified as there was no information available with bank regarding existence of status quo order.
ITAT Indore held that Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is not taxable in hands of borrower-company who doesn’t hold shares in lender-company. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition set aside.
Delhi High Court held that demand of customs duty on account of failure to fulfil export obligations under Advance Authorization set aside as export obligation was fulfilled within extended period and redemption/discharge certificate was issued thereafter.
Madras High Court held that when the moisture content is below 10%, the same is to be considered only to be a roasted areca nut thus writ petition is disposed of with direction to the department to release the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that Light Green Float Glass is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 7005 10 10 and not under 7005 21 10. Further, it is not permissible for department to contend re-classification since order of Commissioner (A) classifying under CTH 7005 10 10 already accepted by department.
NCLT Cuttack held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is admitted for initiation of Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor [Geosphere Industries Pvt. Ltd.] as operational debt of more than Rs. 1 crore stands established and default thereon is proved.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that order passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the said order was also not served. Thus, order is set aside and matter restored back.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer needs to lift attachment of the property based on orders passed by the highest fact finding authority has attained finality and there is no payment pending on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of ‘reasons to suspect’ rather than on ‘reason to believe’ is invalid in the eye of law. Held that passive reliance on third-party intelligence would render the reopening invalid as it reflected merely a ‘reason to suspect’.
