Assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F in respect of the entire value of all 50 residential flats receivable under the Joint Development Agreement. Prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under section 54F could not be restricted merely because the investment was made in multiple residential units.
NCLAT held that the order appointing the Resolution Professional under Section 97 was obtained on the basis of misrepresented and non-existent jurisdictional facts relating to the alleged personal guarantee. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside as void ab initio.
Section 7 insolvency application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) was admitted against Martina Bio Genics Private Limited and held that pending winding-up proceedings could not override the objective of corporate revival under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Appellants activity of providing trailers along with drivers, crew, fuel, insurance and retaining effective control and possession thereof was appropriately classifiable under the category of Supply of Tangible Goods Service” and not under Goods Transport Agency Service.
Tribunal could not recall and restore an appeal dismissed ex parte under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, when assessee filed miscellaneous applications after a lapse of 14 years without establishing sufficient cause for non-appearance, and where service of the original order was presumed under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as the term “afterwards” used in Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules provided procedural flexibility but did not grant an indefinite timeline.
Show cause notice dated 06-12-2012 issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, was quashed for lack of jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
Tribunal held that third-party exports relied upon by EPCG licence holders for discharge of export obligation were valid under the FTP framework prevailing during the relevant period and that Customs authorities could not disregard subsisting EODCs restored by DGFT in the absence of independently established fraud.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
