Held that applicant, subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit, is not eligible to make a declaration under ‘Voluntary Disclosure’ under SVLDRS Scheme
Held that disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i)/ 40(a)(ia) unsustainable as the alleged amount is not debited to the profit and loss account and accordingly not claimed as deduction under profits and gains of business or profession
Held that cash withdrawn by the assessee from the bank was much more than the amount deposited due to demonetization. Further, there is no findings by the authorities that this cash available with the assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose. Hence, addition u/s 69A unsustainable
Held that colour data projectors are classified under CTI 8528 61 00 and accordingly unconditional exemption from payment of BCD available under serial no. 17 of exemption notification dated 01.03.2005.
Held that rule 12 Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 does not expressly debar the Director Discipline from entertaining a complaint merely because it may relate to acts of misconduct committed seven years prior to the same being lodged.
Held that if there is bona fide dispute, it is only the jurisdictional assessing officer to decide the issue and it is not by the Roving Squad Officers.
Held that Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 of the IBC. U/s. 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act. Accordingly, the Government can claim first charge over the property of the Corporate Debtor
Held that service provider is entitled for refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when output service is exported. The said rule 5 doesn’t stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
Held that as there was no material on the basis of which Sessions Court could have summoned any of the accused. The summoning order was rightly set aside.
Bail granted after considering various factors like applicant already paid INR 54.09 Crores; the amount of INR 196,57,02,539/- is already seized by the department; applicant has already spent more than 8 months in jail; applicant has not previous criminal history; etc.
