ITAT Chennai restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that the assessment and appellate proceedings were concluded ex parte without deciding the issues on merits. The Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits with evidence.
The High Court held that prolonged custody and anticipated delay in trial cannot independently justify bail in cases involving commercial quantity narcotics. The statutory requirements under Section 37 continue to govern such applications.
The Delhi High Court discharged contempt proceedings after the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to repeat similar conduct. The Court imposed costs of Rs.3 lakh while censuring the filing of a petition based on false declarations.
ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of disallowance relating to brought forward losses of an amalgamating company after finding that the amalgamated entity had continued the business and retained the prescribed fixed assets. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence showing non-compliance with Section 72A(2).
CESTAT ruled that labour deployment and use of machinery under the lease arrangement were inseparable from plantation operations. In the absence of independent consideration, separate tax demands were unsustainable.
The NCLT Mumbai held that a personal guarantor’s liability under an on-demand guarantee arises only after proper invocation. Since no separate invocation was established, the insolvency petition was dismissed.
The Ahmedabad Bench dispensed with several shareholder and creditor meetings after recording consent affidavits approving the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. Meetings were directed only where required.
The Bombay High Court held that TCS paid under protest before assessment must be considered while calculating the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court found that the amount already paid exceeded the statutory requirement, eliminating the need for any further deposit.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit solely because the supplier failed to deposit tax with the Government. It ruled that action must ordinarily be directed against the defaulting supplier unless collusion or lack of bona fides is established.
The Bangalore ITAT held that ambiguity in the penalty proceedings rendered the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 270A.
