DRAT Chennai held that measures taken under SARFAESI Act for sale of property is not in accordance with also since affixture of the impugned sale notice was not proved by the appellant bank and valuation of the property was not properly done.
Notice issued by a non-jurisdictional AO was invalid rendering the addition under Section 69A void ab initio. It directly impacted the validity of the assessment under Section 69A, leading to the complete annulment of the additions.
Madras High Court held that matter of leviability of 2% TDS on reimbursable expenses in case of Customs House Agent [CHA] is remanded back since assessee failed to produce supporting documentary evidence.
The Calcutta High Court sets aside a 100% GST penalty, ruling that a stock transfer with proper documentation but without a registered “additional place of business” does not warrant a penalty.
There was no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner enhancing the value of the touch media device by including the value of the licence software imported subsequently and confirmed the differential duty demanded with interest and imposition of penalty.
ITAT Delhi held that multiple residential units on same floor is construed as single residential house for purpose of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 54 allowed and addition deleted.
Delhi High Court held that Customs Broker failure to oversee the clearance and the warehousing of the goods imported with intention to re-export leading to diversion of the goods in the domestic market is a clear violation. However, suspension of license for 13 months is sufficient.
ITAT Kolkata upholds Rs.17.10 crore penny stock addition against Narayan Suppliers Pvt Ltd, flags money laundering, and directs case referral to ED and CBI for further probe.
ITAT Chennai invalidated reassessment in Pawan Cargo Forwards’ case due to notice issued by JAO, not FAO, violating the CBDT’s 2022 faceless scheme. Penny stock addition deleted.
NCLT Chennai held that as per section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the liability of guarantor is coextensive with that of the Borrower. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against Corporate Guarantor admitted.
