With insolvency cases taking up to 853 days against the 330-day mandate, concerns over NCLT backlog have intensified. A new bench at Patna is proposed to reduce pendency and improve time-bound corporate resolution.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Circular No. 3/3/2017 is legally valid, holding that the Board acted within its statutory powers under the CGST Act. The Court emphasized the presumption of validity and rejected the claim that only the Commissioner could assign functions.
The Tribunal held that once provisions were disallowed and taxed in an earlier year, their subsequent reversal cannot be taxed again. It directed withdrawal of income offered to prevent double taxation.
The new framework mandates that proceedings under Section 74A must be initiated by officers formally designated through Circular 254/11/2025-GST. Notices issued without valid jurisdiction are void ab initio.
Penalty was imposed alleging misreporting due to belated PF/ESI remittance. The Tribunal ruled that a disclosed claim later disallowed does not fall under any clause of Section 270A(9), and deleted the penalty.
The High Court quashed recovery proceedings for ITC reversal, holding that mere non-deposit of tax by the supplier is insufficient without proof of collusion, fake invoices, or lack of bona fides.
The Companies Act prescribes detailed procedures for appointing first and subsequent auditors, including tenure limits and mandatory rotation. This guide explains eligibility, appointment timelines, and compliance requirements.
A rights issue allows companies to raise capital by offering discounted shares to existing shareholders. This guide explains the step-by-step process, regulatory filings, and key investor considerations.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that 176 customized aircraft components are classifiable under CTH 88073000 as Other parts of aeroplanes. The Authority held that the goods are exclusively designed for aircraft use and are not parts of general use under Section XVII Notes.
CAAR Mumbai refused to issue a fresh ruling on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue was already decided by the Madras High Court. The statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act was applied.
