Allahabad High Court held that after one time settlement of loan between borrowers and guarantor with bank, the criminal proceedings against accused [who is neither borrower nor guarantor] having business relation with borrower is liable to be quashed.
Assessee claimed that cash sales were recorded and backed by VAT invoices, and that AO had misread e cash balance figures. Audited financials, VAT returns, and confirmations were placed on record, which AO had not examined.
Karnataka High Court held that appellate jurisdiction against the reassessment order u/s. 39(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT Act], cannot be equated with the jurisdiction conferred u/s. 69 of KVAT Act to seek rectification.
Until the goods are appropriated by the stockyards/warehouses from out of the stocks available with them, they continue in the inventory of the stockyards/warehouses. Thus, supplies made to the stockyards/warehouses are merely stock transfers.
Madras High Court held that non-granting sufficient time to the petitioner for furnishing reply results into lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be set aside.
Gauhati High Court denied to transfer large scale financial fraud case from Aizawl to Assam since sufficient number of witnesses have been listed by the IO to prove the case and there appears to be no compelling reason to transfer the cases.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant to be treated as secured Financial Creditor based on the registered charge with CERSAI in accordance with Regulation 21 of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
The Madras High Court has addressed a tax dispute involving Tvl. Aro Granite Industries Ltd., directing an assessing authority to re-evaluate a slump sale claim independently, free from prior appellate observations.
Delhi High Court held that payments received for services that may require technical expertise, technical inventions or technology would not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The Kerala High Court affirmed the validity of Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, classifying it as a building tax, not a luxury tax, but restricted recovery to a three-year period.
