ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
SC dismissed Revenue’s plea after Gujarat HC held that even proposed additions would not alter MAT liability, defeating escapement claims. HC found all material facts were disclosed during scrutiny assessment; SC left the order undisturbed.
Finvin Investor Private Limited Vs Orix Leasing and Financial Services Limited (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, disposed of two appeals arising from the same order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, concerning an application filed under Sections 43, 66, 67 and 70 of the […]
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional interest under Section 244A(1A) because the Assessing Officer failed to pass the appeal effect order within the statutory timeline.
ESTAT held demurrage linked to transportation contracts is not consideration for services and cannot be taxed under Port Services or declared services.
The Tribunal held that once Second Line Support services were examined and covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement, disallowance under Section 37(1) could not be sustained.
High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presumptions. High Court ruled that breach of Section 269SS may attract penalty but does not make a cash loan unenforceable under NI Act.
NCLAT held that a bidder’s exclusion due to an unresolved platform issue warranted reconsideration, especially when a higher offer was available.
Tribunal ruled that contempt punishment requires clear charges, show-cause notice, and opportunity of hearing before penal action. NCLAT set aside contempt directions after finding that no individual officers were identified before ordering imprisonment.
The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Court ruled that separate notices and adjudication are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.
