Supreme Court: Director of Income Tax (IT)-I v. Superstar Libra Ltd. BACKGROUND The assessee, acting as an agent of Superstar Libra Ltd. (SLL), a non-resident shipping company, sought a certificate under Section 195 by claiming that the income of SLL was taxable under Section 44B at the presumptive rate of 7.5% of the gross …

ITAT Bangalore: Arakere Channappa Vishwanath v. ITO The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the Assessing Officer erred in taxing the entire gross gaming receipts of Rs 2.33 crore under Section 115BB. The assessment was initiated on the basis of information received from the Compliance Risk Information Unit and details furnished by Gameskraft …

Karnataka High Court: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Koramangala, Bangalore & Anr. v. Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that Section 56(2)(ix) was inapplicable where the advances were received for procuring land as stock-in-trade and there was no forfeiture of such advances. The assessee, engaged in the business of …

Delhi High Court: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. SpiceJet Ltd. The Court dismissed the Revenue appeals, holding that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB’s) is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee had claimed deduction of expenditure incurred …

M/s Wellman Distributors v. Commr. of Customs - CESTAT Chennai Background: The Department enhanced the customs value of imported LED bulbs solely on the basis of NIDB data, resulting in a demand of differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, which was challenged by the importer. Held: The CESTAT, Chennai held that NIDB data alone …

The petitioner sought refund of Rs. 33 lakh deposited during a DGGI investigation, which had been allowed by the First Appellate Authority. However, the Deputy Commissioner refused to consider the refund application on the ground that the Department still had time under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act to file an appeal before the GST …

Supreme Court: UOI v. M/s KK Alloys The petitioner challenged the negative blocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, contending that the authorities had blocked ITC exceeding the credit available in the ECL by creating a negative balance.  The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Rule 86A …

Tripura High Court: Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. UOI and Ors. The main question before the Court was whether the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 was barred by limitation, and whether the extension granted for furnishing the annual return for FY 2017-18 under Notification No. 06/2020 dated 03.02.2020 also extended the time …

Madras High Court: Guru and Co. v. UOI and Ors.  The petitioners challenged Notifications Nos. 27/2017 and 28/2017 (CGST/IGST) and the corresponding State Notifications, contending that the Government had expanded the scope of GST by introducing the expression “enforceable right in a court of law”, which was not part of the GST Council’s recommendations. …