The Tribunal admitted insolvency proceedings after finding documentary evidence of operational debt, part payment, ledger confirmation, and admission of liability by the Corporate Debtor. The absence of any pre-existing dispute was a key factor.
The Tribunal set aside a penalty under Section 114(iii) after finding no evidence that the Customs Broker knew of or participated in the alleged overvaluation of export goods. The ruling emphasizes that penalties require proof of involvement or abetment.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, and assessment proceedings. The penalties were deleted as there was no concealment of income.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advisory and consultancy services provided by a UAE company did not amount to Fees for Technical Services because no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, no TDS liability arose on the remittances.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-barred. The extended period of limitation was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that once an earlier show cause notice had been issued on the same issue, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation again. The service tax demand and related liabilities were set aside.
The ITAT Delhi held that an interest-bearing loan can still be taxed as deemed dividend where all statutory conditions under Section 2(22)(e) are satisfied. Repayment of the loan did not alter its tax treatment.
The Madras High Court held that a show cause notice and assessment order issued in the name of a deceased proprietor are void. The order was quashed, with liberty granted to proceed against legal heirs according to law.
The Court granted bail after noting that the principal material against the applicants consisted of confessional statements and statements of co-accused persons. Charge sheets had already been filed in the cases.
The Karnataka High Court directed that a fresh refund application be treated as filed on the date of the original application. The period spent addressing repeated deficiency memos was excluded for limitation purposes.
