Ratnagiri Gas And Power Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that the petitioner’s responses dated 13th June, 2022, and 30th June, 2022, have not been considered by the AO while passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 11. Consequently, the impugned order passed under […]
Subrata Maity Vs Amit C. Poddar (NCLAT Delhi) The Adjudicating Authority has noted in the order that the Appellant was arrested by the CBI and due to which 116 days was lost due to incapability of the Appellant to act as a Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was granted bail […]
Universal Industries Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant, inter alia urges that appellant have paid custom duty on CIF value which includes ocean freight element. Thus, there can be no demand of service tax on the purchase price of goods, even under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. […]
Sirur Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (TDS) (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that the issue as to whether penalty under section 271C of the Act is leviable for non-deduction of tax on payments made for External Development Charges (EDC) to HUDA came up for hearing before the Tribunal in the case of TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. […]
Shashank Shekhar Singh Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee wherein the additional evidences produced by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) namely the Mutual Funds statement was issued on 01.04.2014 whereas the reassessment was passed on […]
Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, could not file part documents as required by Assessing Officer, however, from documents produced, it is apparently clear that required details with regard to purchase price/value of property was available before authorities
Alkem Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Whether the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of medicament (exhibit batches) and the same is tested for trial and quality purpose and were destroyed / disposed off within the factory thereafter? CESTAT find that there is […]
V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that requires to be analysed in these present appeals is whether the date of one year has to be computed from the date of resubmission of the refund claim or the date of original submission of the claim. Needless to say that […]
Re-assessment proceedings were sought to be initiated against a non-existent company as it had amalgamated with Petitioner and income of assessee had already been accounted for in books of accounts of Petitioner.
Section 23(3) of IBC Code clearly provides for handing over of documents by IRP to RP. DC notes that acts of Mr. Prateek Kathuria for non-submission of documents to newly appointed IRP has caused delay in process which could have been avoided. Hence, the DC finds that Mr. Prateek Kathuria has violated section 23(3), 17(2)(e), […]
