The Competition Commission of India is examining allegations that GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited unfairly restricted Air Works India’s aircraft maintenance services, potentially favoring its own subsidiary.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellant is entitled for refund of credit admissible on account of payment of Countervailing Duty [CVD] and Special Additional Duty [SAD] paid after 01.07.2017 [paid after Central Goods and Services Tax].
Petitioner is a subsidiary of IDP Education Ltd., a publicly listed Australian Company (IDP Australia). IDP Australia has entered into agreements with various Foreign Universities, inter alia, to assist aspiring students with enrolment with these Foreign Universities.
CESTAT Kolkata held that any salary paid to the Directors of the Company for the service rendered by him as an employee of the company, is outside the scope of service. Accordingly, demand of service tax is not sustainable.
NCLT Mumbai held that initiation of liquidation of Corporate Debtor in terms of section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted as members of CoC having 66.29% voting share approved resolution to initiate liquidation.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against Corporate Debtor [Quanteco World Limited] for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] is admissible since debt and default duly established.
Madras High Court held that delay of 150 days in filing of GST appeal due to medical issues is genuine and hence liable to be condoned. Accordingly, condones the delay and directs the petitioner to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of agricultural income as unexplained income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as documents evidencing ownership of agricultural land now placed on record. Accordingly, matter remanded back to file of AO for fresh adjudication.
Andhra Pradesh HC held that rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that parallel proceedings for the same periods of the assessment amounts to double taxation and the same is impermissible in law. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and assessment order set aside.
