The courts held that when depreciation on goodwill is allowed after detailed examination, the assessment cannot be revised as erroneous. The key takeaway is that a plausible and informed assessment order bars revision under Section 263.
The Bombay High Court held that insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors cannot continue before the DRT once CIRP of the corporate debtor is underway. Such proceedings must lie exclusively before the NCLT. The key takeaway is that Section 60 of the IBC overrides DRT jurisdiction in these cases.
The AAR held that medicated toilet soap cannot claim the 5% GST rate meant for ordinary toilet soap, as its therapeutic nature places it under a separate tariff entry attracting 18% GST.
The ruling refused to admit the application, noting that the pure agent issue on electricity reimbursement had already been decided during audit. Advance ruling was barred under Section 98(2) once the matter stood concluded.
The issue was whether revision could stand on incorrect factual assumptions. ITAT held that misreading records makes the revision invalid, reaffirming that Section 263 needs real errors.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported parts being all parts of Juniper router are cannot be classified as Network Interface Card hence are classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 as contended by appellant and not under CTI 8517 62 90 as contended by department.
The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
The issue was whether an assessment can continue after the assessee’s death. The Tribunal held such an order void ab initio when the legal heir is not substituted.
NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor has ownership right including the assets that may or may not be in possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, section 18(1) of IBC enables resolution profession to repossess shares held in any subsidiaries of Corporate Debtor.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
