Gujarat High Court held that not providing seven days time for filing of reply against notice in Form GST MOV-07 and passing of the impugned order u/s. 129(3) of the CGST Act amounts to flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 75(5) of the CGST Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. Accordingly, writ dismissed as not entertained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once cash sales are accepted as genuine for the purpose of determining profit, the same cannot be added again as unexplained cash credit by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai rules that the buyer’s intention is irrelevant when classifying land. The court upholds the agricultural nature of land based on revenue records, not the buyer’s plans.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the admissibility of new claims during reassessment and appellate proceedings, distinguishing between the limited scope of Section 147 and the broader jurisdiction of appellate authorities.
Karnataka High Court dismisses a Revenue appeal, affirming that additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during a search.
Madras High Court held that no interpretation contrary to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] can be attributed to the expression ‘going concern sale’ as contemplated under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
ITAT Pune remands 80G approval case, stating incorrect section code is not fatal. Directs CIT(E) to allow rectification and hear the application on merits.
The NCLAT Delhi rules on the Puneet Resutra vs. J&K Bank case, clarifying that a one-time settlement with a guarantor does not extinguish the principal borrowers debt. The court upheld the initiation of insolvency proceedings.
AO taxed the said surrendered amount under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
