Tribunal ruled that objections relating to defective title, encroachments, and legal disputes require proper valuation examination through a DVO reference. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal set aside the capital gains addition for fresh determination.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail in an alleged fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete and evidence was mainly documentary and electronic. The Court held that continued custody was not justified when no further interrogation was required.
In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Special Judge for Commercial Disputes that had rejected the plaintiffs’ application to file additional documents.
The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Consortium lenders were therefore entitled to Financial Creditor status and inclusion in the Committee of Creditors.
The Delhi High Court held that an adjudication order passed by an officer who never personally heard the assessee violates principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that “one who hears must decide” and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Delhi HC held that a taxpayer can legally carry on business through a mobile phone in addition to the registered principal place of business.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
