The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file a delayed appeal against the GST demand and penalty order passed under Section 74. The key takeaway is that the appellate authority may condone delay after considering that the taxpayer had been pursuing a writ remedy.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot tax share premium under Section 68 solely on the basis that the premium lacks commercial justification. Valuation concerns fall outside the scope of Section 68 for years prior to the introduction of Section 56(2)(viib).
The Delhi High Court held that its earlier order directing the applicant to join investigation within ten days required no further clarification. The Court ruled that the applicant had failed to act within the stipulated timeline despite adequate directions.
The Rajasthan GSTAT Bar has urged the Tribunal to adopt a pragmatic approach by accepting pre-deposits made through the Electronic Credit Ledger and refraining from objecting to original Hindi records filed with appeals.
The ruling emphasized that CAM charges remain separate transactions irrespective of whether payments are made to the same landlord or a different entity. TDS under Section 194C was held to be correctly deducted.
The NCLT held that insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot proceed unless the guarantee has been specifically invoked through a contractual demand notice. A Rule 7 notice under the Personal Guarantor Rules was found to be merely procedural. Since no valid invocation was established, the Tribunal ruled that no default had arisen under the IBC.
The Tribunal held that, apart from the CBDT clarification, the seller had declared the capital gains and discharged taxes. Therefore, the purchaser could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1).
The NCLT dismissed the insolvency application after finding that the agreements forming the basis of the alleged operational debt were not properly executed. The absence of signatures and uncertainty regarding execution dates undermined their evidentiary value. As a result, the applicant failed to establish a maintainable claim under Section 9 of the IBC.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest to the date of refund determination under Section 143(1) was found to be incorrect.
The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fresh consideration during the relevant year. The ruling emphasizes that the provision is triggered only upon actual receipt of share consideration.
