The court examined whether disciplinary findings based on impersonation and unauthorised audits could be reopened. It upheld dismissal, holding that serious integrity breaches justified the penalty and warranted no judicial interference.
The issue involved an ex parte GST assessment raised against an unregistered contractor due to incorrect reliance on WAMIS data. The High Court quashed the demand after the State admitted confusion with another registered person of the same name.
The appellate tribunal upheld approval of a resolution plan, rejecting challenges by operational creditors. The ruling reaffirms that courts cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC if statutory requirements are met.
The High Court held that when the validity of DRI-issued show cause notices is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should not remand matters. The correct course is to keep appeals pending and await the apex court’s ruling.
The order appoints a new chairman and members drawn from senior insurance and regulatory backgrounds. The key takeaway is continuity and strengthened advisory oversight.
A health-linked pension scheme is introduced on a pilot basis under the regulatory sandbox. The key takeaway is a controlled test of medical expense support within NPS before wider rollout.
Charitable trusts often invest with co-operative societies assuming compliance. The law permits deposits only with scheduled banks or licensed co-operative banks, risking loss of exemption otherwise.
The issue focuses on whether income is taxable in India or abroad after a change in residency. DTAA provisions ensure that the same income is not taxed twice.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when the alleged income escapement cited for reopening is accepted and no related addition is made. Without sustaining the original reason for reopening, jurisdiction itself collapses.
The Tribunal upheld the remand of an ex parte assessment where substantial bank deposits were not supported by any documentary evidence. It held that unsupported explanations cannot replace proof, and fresh verification by the Assessing Officer was necessary.
