The Tribunal held that advance tax cannot be treated as delayed when the amount is debited from the taxpayer’s bank account on the due date. Interest under Section 234C was quashed as the delay in challan generation was beyond the assessee’s control.
The Tribunal held that sale of property below the distress value fixed by the bank’s own valuer is impermissible under SARFAESI. The auction and all subsequent actions were set aside.
The court halted enforcement of a GST demand after finding that seized documents and a computer were not returned, denying a fair hearing and effective defence.
The Appellate Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings cannot be revived once the entire default amount claimed in Part IV is paid. Disputes limited to pendente lite interest were held insufficient to restart CIRP.
The High Court quashed a GST demand where part of the liability arose from belated ITC and part from return mismatch, directing fresh adjudication in light of retrospective statutory amendments.
The appellate tribunal upheld rejection of a resolution plan where balance sheets lacked details and assets were valued at NIL. The ruling affirms that plans must be supported by transparent and credible financial disclosures.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding that bank records, agreements, and admissions established benami elements. Procedural objections were held insufficient to override substantive findings.
The ROC Bangalore held that obtaining and retaining a second DIN in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act attracts penalty under Section 159. Despite the error being inadvertent and later rectified, the prolonged default of 3075 days resulted in a reduced but substantial penalty.
The ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for holding two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even though the second DIN was obtained inadvertently and later surrendered, the continuing default for 1227 days attracted adjudication and monetary penalty.
The Supreme Court held that reassessment notices cannot be issued if limitation had expired under the old regime. The ruling affirms that the first proviso to Section 149 prevents retrospective reopening of assessments.
