Delhi High Court held that AO is required to bring on record cogent evidence to justify the invocation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny exemption. Notably, material collected from the internet cannot be termed as corroborative piece of evidence. Accordingly, writ of revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act empowers the Tribunal to rectify glaring error. Thus, earlier order which ignored binding precedents can be rectified. Writ disposed of accordingly.
NCLAT Delhi held that suspended directors, who invested about 5.5 crores and having 51% equity in Corporate Debtor, cannot claim that they were not aware about initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, observation of Adjudicating Authority that Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor were not cooperating with the IRP/RP/Liquidator was justifiable.
Bombay High Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal, acting as an Appellate Authority, certainly had powers to modify the order of part payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act set aside in absence of corroborative evidence proving appellant’s role in mis-declaration/ over-invoicing.
Madras High Court held that petitioner failed to reply since GST show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST portal and petitioner was unaware about the same. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to respondent for fresh consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without mandatory Document Identification Number [DIN] is invalid, non-est and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, assessment order thereon also collapses.
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 not justified since there is no evidence available on record to show that the gold bars were of foreign origin and smuggled into the country.
Madras High Court held that it is not permissible for Central Tax Authorities to initiate proceedings on same subject matter on which audit already conducted by State Tax Authorities. Accordingly, notice quashed as violative of section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Calcutta High Court held that cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance of some procedural requirements is not justified. Accordingly, order cancelling GST registration set aside and petitioner directed to file return for entire period of default.
