Madras High Court held that Government Order No. 339/Public (Law Officers) fixing fees for the law officers is extremely irrational. Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.
NCLT Kolkata held that just because a creditor enjoys security interest, it cannot be treated higher than other creditors who have financed the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that conjoint reading of Section 30 & Section 53 of IBC shows that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. Hence, as the Financial Creditors have not been paid in full, the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount.
ITAT Delhi held that AO drew belief on the reasons which were later found to be totally non-existent. Such defect in the reasons cannot be ascribed as a mere technical irregularity and consequently defect cannot be cured by applying Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
NCLT Mumbai held that petition under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) duly admissible, as two essential qualification i.e. ‘debt’ and ‘default’ existed.
ITAT Mumbai held that income earned from offshore supply of escalators and elevators is not taxable in India as assesse didn’t carried out any operations in India.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per circular F. No. B43/1/97-TRU dated 06/06/1997 services provided by a licensed Custom House Agent in very broad way, to include any service provided to a client in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods. Accordingly, whole range of activity is covered under CHA service.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose any material facts.
