NCLT Cuttack held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor [ASB Energy Systems and Construction Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted as operational debt and default thereon is admitted.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that assessee is barred from raising objection regarding jurisdiction after one month of service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ITAT absolutely justified in not entertaining jurisdictional question.
ITAT Delhi held that no addition can be made u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act without there being any incriminating material relating to unabated assessment year. Therefore, additions made in the assessment order is deleted and appeal is partly allowed.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1) of both the Central and State GST Acts. Accordingly, order is set aside and writ petition is allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand is confirmed since it is will established that assessee was collecting the service tax from its customers/ clients, however, the same was not deposited to the government exchequer. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that as per the MAT provisions of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act the lower of book losses or unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against book profits. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of assessee dismissed.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Synergy Food and Agro Processors Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted as operational debt and default thereon is admitted.
ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act towards deemed dividend is vacated since loan is advanced in the preceding year. Therefore, in absence of any payment by the company in the current year, there is no justification to held that amount is received as deemed dividend.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act made without invalidating evidences establishing identity/ creditworthiness of investor and genuineness of transaction not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to scrutinize the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO on account of TP adjustment is not sustainable.
