Madras High Court held that ex-parte order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without affording adequate opportunity of being heard is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order set aside.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notice issued under section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Duty Act, 1899 for non-payment of stamp duty on unregistered document is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court held that duty demand alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of goods cannot be sustained in absence of any tangible evidence. Such charges cannot be sustained based on sketchy evidence.
NCLAT Chennai held that claim raised by operational creditor towards performance pay cannot be taken as operational debt hence application proceedings under section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for drawing CIRP proceedings not tenable.
NCLAT Delhi held that application filed under section 43 of the IBC by Liquidator on the basis of Transaction Audit Report for avoidance of preferential transactions tenable in law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue Department, upholding Delhi High Court’s judgment on CENVAT credit refund to BT India.
Delhi High Court held that there was no evidence of cessation of liability thus addition under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted as delay in BU was due to dispute of jurisdiction between AMC and AUDA. Accordingly, following judgement of Jurisdictional HC and SC disallowance rightly deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on loan from group entities are in the nature of reimbursement and therefore not liable for deduction of TDS. Therefore, addition made by AO is directed to be deleted.
Kerala High Court held that the issue relating requirement of separate notification as contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1) of the CGST Act for cross-empowerment requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.
