The case examined whether Tribunal approval was required for extending preference share redemption. It was held that such extension within 20 years does not require NCLT intervention and can be done with shareholder consent.
CESTAT Chennai held that clearance of personal computers from Special Economic Zone [SEZ] to Domestic Tariff Area [DTA] cannot be automatically classified as imported for personal use under CTH 9804 90 00 without discharging burden of proof. Accordingly, classification based on assumption set aside and appeal is allowed.
ITAT held that late filing of Form 67 is only a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny FTC. The matter was remanded for verification and grant of eligible credit.
The court held that failure to grant a personal hearing violated statutory provisions and natural justice, invalidating the proceedings. It ruled that such defects cannot be cured at the appellate stage.
The court held that parties cannot introduce additional evidence as a matter of right under Rule 29. The ITAT’s acceptance of Revenue-filed evidence and remand order was set aside as beyond jurisdiction.
The issue involved rejection of an appeal against GST cancellation on limitation grounds. The Court granted relief by following consistent precedents, allowing restoration subject to compliance conditions.
The issue involved denial of exemption on sale of agricultural land. The Tribunal held that the land met conditions of Section 2(14)(iii), making gains non-taxable. The case examined whether land sale constituted business income. The Tribunal ruled that absence of development or trading intent invalidated such classification.
Tribunal holds buyer’s intended industrial use does not alter land classification; gains from sale of agricultural land held non-taxable.
The court held that revision under section 263 requires independent satisfaction by the PCIT. Acting merely on the Assessing Officer’s view renders the revision order invalid.
The issue was whether high-turnover companies can be compared with a smaller software service provider. The Tribunal held that companies with disproportionately large turnover must be excluded as they distort comparability due to scale advantages.
