CESTAT Mumbai held that consignment of steam coal imports from Indonesia is not overvalued and the scheme of valuation does not stand in support of the manner in which the value has been sought to be substituted in the notice. Accordingly, present appeals are dismissed.
Clarifies that GST demands and ITC notices can only be issued by officers legally empowered under GST laws, reinforcing the strict “proper officer” doctrine.
Explains how weak Monitoring Committee structures undermine CIRP implementation and highlights the need for clearer authority and stronger project management to ensure successful post-approval execution.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made at the time of search cannot be construed as voluntary under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by relying solely on an investigation report without examining books and invoices, and therefore sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
Orissa High Court held that submission of Audit Visit Report beyond the prescribed time limit invalidates the entire audit assessment under Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [Odisha VAT Act]. Since notice is invalid, the Assessment Order, therefore, is insupportable.
The Tribunal held that once CPC allowed the 80JJAA deduction through a subsequent Section 154 order, the earlier rectification appeal no longer survived. The appeal was dismissed as academic, with a clarification that no extra deduction beyond what CPC allowed could be granted.
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is remanded, directing the AO to re-decide the penalty after the quantum order is finalized.
NCLT admitted a Section 7 IBC petition after the borrower defaulted on a ₹13.5 crore loan and failed to appear despite multiple notices. The Tribunal held that debt and default were clearly established.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
