The issue was rejection of a GST appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit. The Court held that the appellant must be given an opportunity to deposit and have the appeal decided on merits.
The issue involved penalty imposed for alleged GSTIN discrepancy in transit goods. The Court held that payment concludes proceedings but allowed appeal without further pre-deposit.
The Court held that failure to prove identity and source of creditors attracts Section 68. Such unexplained credits cannot be treated as business income or eligible for deduction under Sections 80-IA/80-IB.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
The Court held that provisional attachment under Section 110(5) lapses after six months if not extended. It ruled that failure to pass a timely extension order renders the attachment invalid.
The issue involved service tax demand on GTO services using Section 73. The Tribunal held that recipients governed by Section 71A cannot be proceeded against under Section 73. The demand was quashed due to procedural invalidity of the notice.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses, relying on earlier decisions in the same case. It ruled that no change in facts justified a different view.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. It set aside the order and directed fresh assessment after proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that applications were rejected without adequate opportunity. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice.
Procedure under the Companies Act, 2013 and IEPF Rules, 2016 Introduction Equity shares for which dividends have remained unpaid or unclaimed for 7 consecutive years or more are subject to transfer, to the demat account, of the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) Authority. This ensures that unclaimed financial assets are safeguarded and can be […]
