ITAT Raipur held that addition of commission @1% on bogus sales transacted upheld as no plausible explanation provided by the assessee. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Pune held that delay of 02 seconds in filing income tax return [ITR] is to be condoned and return is to be treated as filed in time as delay was caused due to technical glitch and last hour rush in website. Accordingly, claim of carry forward business loss allowed.
The Supreme Court has ordered a status quo on NCLT proceedings involving JSW Steel Limited and Sanjay Singhal, pending a review petition against a prior judgment.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty fixed at percentage of net sales is not includible in transaction value of goods imported under rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 as royalty paid is not related to imported goods. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code rightly dismissed as debt fell within restricted period under section 10A. accordingly, order of Adjudicating Authority upheld.
Madras High Court held that that the essential parameters such as moisture and ash content were not tested properly for classification of roasted areca nuts. Accordingly, matter remitted back to Commissioner of Customs for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax demand on the service of Multi System Operator provided to cable TV operator is sustainable. Further, since there was suppression of facts to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation is duly invoked.
CIRP against the Corporate Debtor-Rajesh Cityspaces Private Limited commenced on 15.01.2024. Mr. Ajit Gyanchand Jain- Respondent No.1 was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
ITAT Bangalore dismissed Karuturi Global’s appeals due to improper verification by directors and the tax department’s appeals as infructuous due to ongoing liquidation.
Madras High Court held that confiscation of crude gold bar justified as source of income for having purchased gold bar not proved. Thus, burden of proof u/s. 123 of the Customs Act not discharged.
