ITAT Delhi held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since proper enquiry and examination was made and therefore, there is no error in the order of the AO thus, it is not pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The Patna High Court directs a petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner for a claim regarding the classification of their commercial land as agricultural for an NH-28 acquisition.
CESTAT Chennai held the denial of import exemption customs authority not justifiable since import was made under DGFT licence which was valid at the time of import and was cancelled by DGFT much later. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
Madras High Court held that levy of late fee under section 47(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is upheld for non-filing of annual return in Form GSTR-9 for F.Y. 2021-2022 after expiry of period of three years from due date of furnishing of said return.
NCLT Cuttack held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] admitted against Corporate Debtor [Fortune Spirit Limited] as debt and default in payment of debt duly proved.
In Puneet Batra vs UOI, the Delhi HC ruled that GST officials cannot access a lawyer’s computer without his presence, and set conditions for examining seized data.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a 3.16 crore GST demand against National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), ruling that the company was not given a proper opportunity to respond.
he Delhi High Court directs the Customs Department to refund a Kuwaiti resident for a seized gold piece that was disposed of prematurely.
The Karnataka High Court dismisses a Revenue appeal, affirming that a ₹7 crore share sale was a genuine transaction and not unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a penalty on a taxpayer, ruling that a one-time settlement from an employer was a capital receipt. The court held that no concealment of income occurred as the amount was disclosed in the tax return.
