MSME certificate was required to take benefit of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) under Section 240A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and it was not necessary to pursue Section 230 of the Companies Act at the stage of Liquidation, the same not being part of Procedure of IBC when the Corporate Debtor was in Liquidation.
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be available to the Court to countenance the breach of a statuary provision under Sections 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Reassessment proceedings initiated upon report of the Investigation Wing was not valid as AO had not applied his mind independently and acted solely upon the report of the Investigation Wing.
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Anticipatory bail was granted to the person accused of non-payment of GST to the tune of Rs 17.53 Crores and non-filing of GSTR 3B returns as it was settled position that the applicant apprehending arrest need not be made an accused in a crime to seek the relief of anticipatory bail and it was sufficient in case he succeeded in establishing that his apprehension of arrest was reasonable.
Sobha City Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) No addition for transfer pricing (TP) adjustment related to Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT). Conclusion: The reference to TPO for transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned in clause (i) of section 92BA was not valid, as the said provision had been omitted. Accordingly, AO was directed […]
Runwal Constructions Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Notice issued to assessee for prohibiting the transfer of property for alleged non-payment of Excise duty by Respondent No. 3 was quashed as excise dues were not dues which arise out of land or building. Such liabilities could be in the form of property tax, […]
Neither Section 194-C nor 194-I of the Act would be applicable to the lease financing of motor vehicles; thus there could have been no disallowance on the ground that there was no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee.
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
Additions made on the basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) in the hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the seized material belongs to company was not justified as the same were not attributable to the Managing Director for undisclosed and unaccounted income of the Company.
