Carbon Credit was not an offshoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business, but it was generated due to environmental concerns. Therefore, income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Custom Authority had allowed the clearance of Pigeon Peas as there was valid registration of Advance Payment Certificate and registration certificate was binding on the respondents until the completion of the import quota mentioned therein and considering that assessee had imported the import item before 31.03.2021, assessee’s import was required to be declared as valid import under the FTP.
S. R. Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Search proceedings had been rightly initiated as assessee had nothing to fear, they could as well place all the materials before AO for consideration and more so, the jurisdictional facts exist for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A as well as Section 153C of the Act. […]
MSME certificate was required to take benefit of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) under Section 240A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and it was not necessary to pursue Section 230 of the Companies Act at the stage of Liquidation, the same not being part of Procedure of IBC when the Corporate Debtor was in Liquidation.
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be available to the Court to countenance the breach of a statuary provision under Sections 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Reassessment proceedings initiated upon report of the Investigation Wing was not valid as AO had not applied his mind independently and acted solely upon the report of the Investigation Wing.
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Anticipatory bail was granted to the person accused of non-payment of GST to the tune of Rs 17.53 Crores and non-filing of GSTR 3B returns as it was settled position that the applicant apprehending arrest need not be made an accused in a crime to seek the relief of anticipatory bail and it was sufficient in case he succeeded in establishing that his apprehension of arrest was reasonable.
Sobha City Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) No addition for transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT). Conclusion: The reference to TPO for transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned in clause (i) of section 92BA was not valid, as the said provision had been omitted. Accordingly, AO was directed […]
Runwal Constructions Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Notice issued to assessee for prohibiting the transfer of property for alleged non-payment of Excise duty by Respondent No. 3 was quashed as excise dues were not dues which arise out of land or building. Such liabilities could be in the form of property tax, […]
