CESTAT Kolkata held that the activity of loading and unloading of goods was instantly for transportation and therefore said services were classified as Goods Transport Agency and not Cargo Handling Services accordingly exempted under notification no. 17/2009.
Held that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for a review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act.
Bombay High Court held that interest or penalty due to delayed payment of tax cannot be levied in absence of specific provisions. Therefore, no interest and penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to surcharge, CVD and SAD.
Delhi High Court held that supplier has to pass on benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply. The supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer.
The Corporate Debtor used the services/ items extended and supplied by the Operational Creditor but failed to clear the dues. Accordingly, the Operational Creditor/Petitioner issued Demand Notice u/s 8 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 dated 24.05.2021 in Form 3 thereby demanding for repayment of outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.1,44,07,834/-. Despite receipt of said Demand Notice, the Corporate Debtor neither replied to the same nor repaid the outstanding dues.
NCLAT Delhi held that once One Time Settlement is failed and CIRP is initiated, the amount lying in the no lien account belongs to the Corporate Debtor.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee has option to choose any of the method i.e., book value method or discounted cash flow method to the Assessee for determining the value of its shares. The valuation so arrived by the expert under Discounted Cash Flow Method providing necessary basis of computation of projection needs to be accepted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that tax authorities cannot enforce any demand on the deductee if the amount of TDS deducted by the dedutor is not deposited with the Government.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT Credit is duly available against debit notes that contains substantially the same information as prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellant has duly reversed the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in respect of finished goods contained in the broken bottles of beverages, the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the same.
