Chemico Synthetics Limited V/S. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) – HC held that an interim relief can be granted to exporters to continue making duty free imports against Advance Authorization (AA) licenses issued to them prior to 1-7-2017 where period of validity of license remains unexpired, however the same shall be subject to certain conditions as prescribed.
In an appeal before Ahmedabad ITAT, DCIT vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., one of the grounds raised was that whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO on account of dis allowances of interest expenses of Rs. 44,19,194/- without considering the merits of the case.
ACIT Vs. M/s. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- ITAT Slams CIT(A) for violation of Judicial Discipline by taking contradictory view on issue already confirmed on merit by it and CIT (Appeals) have no jurisdiction to take any decision on issue which is already been decided by CIT under Section 263.
Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Hedging forward contracts of foreign currency cannot be marked to market (MTM) on balance sheet date as already there is a underlying asset and there is no extra outgo for settlement of the forward contract other than already determined in the contract and thus there is no […]
Madhu M.B vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)- It was held that where as the statutory provisions in relation to search, seizure, detention and release thereof is provided under section 129 of CGST Act, 2017, the Department cannot deviate from the said provisions in order to pass an order which is against such provisions contained in the Act.
Circular No. 20/2017 makes clear the intention of the Department not to contest those cases where the assessees had been given the benefit of adjustment of seized cash against the advance tax liability. There cannot be a situation where for those Assessees who have continued to remain in default of payment of advance tax the benefit […]
Assessee was engaged in the business of plant floriculture and tissue culture, and claimed exemption of income under section 10(1) for being agricultural income, AO was not justified in disallowing exemption on the ground that basic operation were done in greenhouse since involvement of greenhouse would not change the nature of operations.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], Chandigarh bench, has held that the appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal by pointing out the defects in its form without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects.
Out of these four appeals two appeals are filed by the assessee while the other two appeals are filed by the Revenue for against the orders of the CIT(A) – 4, Mumbai dated 13.02.2017 and 06.02.2017 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Cyrus Investment & Anr Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. & Ors. (National Company Law Tribunal) A perusal of the aforesaid prayer does not leave any manner of doubt that the prayer was made for entrusting the Company Petition No. 82/2016 to such Bench of the NCLT as may be appropriate for hearing the same on the […]
