Telangana High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021 without following provisions of section 144B i.e. assessment being carried out in faceless manner is not justifiable. Accordingly, orders are quashed and appeals are allowed.
Patna High Court held that ITAT was not justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) without demonstrating any perversity, misreading of evidence, or application of an incorrect legal standard by the appellate authority. Accordingly, deletion of addition u/s. 68 by CIT(A) justified and writ allowed.
Kerala High Court held that the omission of sub-clause (j) to Section 66D of the Finance Act and, resultantly, imposition of service tax on ‘access to amusement facilities’ is unconstitutional. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
The High Court held that incentives earned by an advertising agency from media firms do not attract service tax when no separate service is rendered to them. The ruling clarifies that incidental incentives linked to core services are not taxable.
The issue was whether an individual accused could be compelled to represent a corporate accused in a PMLA trial. The court held that only the company can appoint its representative and set aside the trial court’s order.
The Court declined to order criminal prosecution based on a complaint to the corporate regulator, holding such relief untenable in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was left free to pursue remedies under the law.
The issue concerned distribution of liquidation proceeds amid disputes over worker claim verification. The court permitted interim payments while directing independent re-verification of disputed claims.
Delhi High Court upheld customs duty paid by a broadcasting company but quashed penalties on directors, recognizing that mis-declaration was for company benefit and not individual gain.
The court examined whether the services qualified as intermediary services and found the issue already settled by multiple prior rulings. It quashed the refund rejection and directed sanction of refund with interest.
The issue concerned non-implementation of a customs order allowing conversion of shipping bills to Drawback plus RoSCTL. The court directed the exporter to file a representation and ordered authorities to decide it within a fixed timeline.
