Additionally, the GST certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central GST confirmed no outstanding dues and that the re-tender order resulted in loss of competitive advantage and investments already made in connection with the lease.
ITAT Indore held that retrospective cancellation of registration granted under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act invalid. Amendment brought in statute via Finance Act, 2022 is prospectively effective from 01.04.2022.
Higher profit per se cannot lead to the conclusion that there is arrangement between the parties. The concept of PLI cannot per se be applied to hold that assessee has earned higher profit
ITAT Delhi held that revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as PCIT failed to demonstrate that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revision order quashed.
Mumbai ITAT allows full depreciation for New Rampgreen Technologies, citing asset ownership date. It also voids the reassessment, holding that the tax audit report was already with the AO, preventing a ‘change of opinion’ based reopening.
ITAT Mumbai held that the waiver of differed sales tax liability is a benefit accrued to the assessee arising out of its business hence the sum waived is taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Karnataka High Court set aside proceedings in a PDS rice seizure case, ruling police lacked jurisdiction for search and seizure under Essential Commodities Act.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] deserves to be admitted once it is proved that there is financial debt in respect of which default has been committed by the Corporate Debtor.
ITAT Delhi held that deeming fiction of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act cannot be attracted when loan or advances are made to person not being shareholder. Accordingly, CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition and hence appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that continuing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] not justified as Corporate Debtor has sufficient funds to discharge the admitted claims of CoC. Thus, adjudicating authority rightly terminated CIRP of Corporate Debtor.
