The petitioner has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that respondent-department erred in denying claim of ITC for delay in filing GSTR-3B returns since the delay was on account of Covid-19 outbreak.
Karnataka High Court held that for AY 2014-2015, assessee couldn’t be classified as wholesale trader as both the specified conditions are not satisfied. Accordingly, in terms of notification no. 30/2013 tolerance range of 3% to be adopted.
ITAT Delhi rules that a single omnibus approval under Section 153D is invalid. Assessments and penalty quashed as approvals must be year-specific with application of mind.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that exemption notification no. 57/2000 issued u/s. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over CBEC circular and hence since exemption notification does not stipulate that only imported gold should be used to manufacture goods for export there is no such requirement.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once the resolution plan is approved by the NCLT and the Company has been sold on going concern basis, whatever claims made before the Liquidator is final and all past or existing liabilities shall extinguish. Accordingly, matter restored back to re-examine claim made before liquidator.
Held that the statutory right of a Financial Creditor bestowed u/s. 7 of the ‘IBC’ cannot be curtailed to any ‘Inter-Creditor Agreement’ or Consortium agreement executed between the lender banks, as the same was only for regulating the inter se affairs of the consortium and the OTS proposal cannot be claimed by a borrower as a matter of right.
The ITAT in Surya Kant Gupta vs. ITO deleted an income addition, ruling that cash withdrawals can explain deposits and the 60% tax rate doesn’t apply retrospectively.
Delhi High Court rules on GST: delayed DRC-07 upload doesn’t void orders, email service is valid, and consolidated SCNs for fraud cases are permitted.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a tax assessment against Melody Enterprises, ruling that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, invalid, and lacked proper scrutiny.
