A statutory tax charge d noidt constitute a secured interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) therefore, the Court directed the removal of the TNVAT Department’s attachment over the corporate debtor’s property.
Smt. Satyabhama Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The Hyderabad ITAT deleted the addition of ₹16.55 lakh u/s 69A, holding that cash found during search was duly explained by earlier accepted cash balance. The Tribunal also condoned a 97-day delay, adopting a liberal approach considering the assessee’s age, lack of digital access, and procedural difficulties. On merits, […]
The case examined whether a single show cause notice could cover multiple tax periods. The Court held such consolidation violates the GST framework and quashed the notice with liberty to reissue year-wise.
The issue was whether failure to deduct TDS due to court directions attracts default. The Tribunal held that compliance with binding interim orders prevents liability under Section 201.
The case addressed whether a refund rejection without granting a personal hearing and providing only seven days to respond was valid. The court set aside the order, holding that such action violated Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice.
The issue was compliance timeline under amended DT regulations. SEBI extended the deadline to October 2026 due to implementation challenges, ensuring smoother transition for trustees.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
IBBI has extended the last date for stakeholder comments on key insolvency discussion papers. The move allows more time for feedback while keeping submission conditions unchanged.
The Court held that Rule 86A applies only when the assessee fraudulently avails ITC. Since the allegation concerned the recipient’s ITC, the notice was without jurisdiction and was set aside.
The case addressed an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s response to the show cause notice. The Court quashed the order and allowed fresh adjudication subject to a 50% pre-deposit, emphasizing procedural fairness.
