The authority held that complaint-related submissions received from Insolvency Professionals are held in fiduciary capacity and exempt under Section 8(1)(e). The ruling reiterates that RTI cannot be used to obtain confidential regulatory material.
The ROC held that failure to reflect authorised capital alteration in every copy of the Memorandum violated Section 15(1), resulting in a penalty on the company and its directors. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with documentation updates.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
Tribunal affirms major penalties for widespread delays and non-reporting of NTRs, STRs, and CBWTRs. Held that systemic AML lapses cannot be excused by technical issues; strict compliance is mandatory.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere technical defects in supplier invoices are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential benefits.
Calcutta High Court held that reversal of CENVAT Credit made was voluntary and doesn’t tantamount to pre-deposit within the meaning of the pre amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be imposed when the assessment order lacks recorded satisfaction of a 269ST violation. The ruling confirms that satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory precondition.
NCLT Mumbai held that mere issuance of debit notes or raising of reconciliation issues at a later stage does not establish a “pre-existing dispute” within the meaning of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted as debt and default proved.
Explains how tribunals have elevated avoidance actions, enabling creditors to unlock major value from preferential and fraudulent pre-insolvency transactions. Highlights stricter duties for RPs and rising director liability.
The Tribunal set aside the earlier order because it had relied on the now-recalled Ganpati Dealcom judgment while excluding pre-2016 funding from scrutiny. The matter has been sent back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the Benami allegations are reconsidered on merits.
