Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited Vs Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian (Supreme Court of India) Facts- Resolution process was initiated against Amtek Auto Limited. Resolution plan submitted by Liberty came to be approved by NCLT, Chandigarh. However, the successful resolution applicant- Liberty didn’t act as per the approved resolution plan. An application u/s 60(5) read […]
Unik Traders Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Option to re-export imported goods, held to be prohibited goods, should be given to mitigate loss of importer Facts- It is the case of the petitioner that they are incurring Demurrage and Container Detention Charges for the containers to the liners as the imported consignments […]
I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
The court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation vide judgement dated 26.03.2015 and it is apparent that the Court found no fault with or falsity in the report. Once the report passed the threshold of judicial scrutiny, there was no reason why the Disciplinary Committee of ICAI should have adjudicated the correctness or otherwise of the report.
It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)& (i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. B
The assessee has not proved that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act does not have any application on the said payment of Rs.21,27,846. Hence, the A.O. was correctly disallowed the expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Considering the serious financial constraints of the assessee due to which it had failed to discharge its admitted self-assessment tax liability at the time of filing its return of income, and for a period thereafter, no penalty under Sec. 221(1) r.w.s 140A(3) could have even otherwise be imposed on it.
Statement under section 132(4) alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee.
Rajputana Stainless Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Facts- A notice alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods during the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16 based on various statements recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act. It included the statement of buyers and some of those buyers denied of having received […]
Akshay N Patel Vs Reserve Bank of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The appellant has challenged the constitutionality of Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT (Merchanting Trade Transactions) Guidelines by alleging a violation of his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. The main issue involved is RBI’s restriction to prohibit MTTs in PPE […]
