After completion of the process, a Resolution Plan was submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the plan with the requisite majority under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Assessee’s remedy lied in recovering the amounts wrongly disbursed through the liquidation process, with the liquidator assisting in such recovery. Upon full satisfaction of the 1st Respondent’s dues, the attachment should stand vacated.
The issue was regarding the disallowance of depreciation and expenses on retention money. Assessee had purchase contracts with retention money payable after successful performance of machinery and recorded the liability under the mercantile system.
The vehicles never plied on public roads. Believing this exclusive internal use made them exempt, Appellant sought relief from paying motor vehicle tax. The State Transport Department rejected the request and demanded over ₹22 lakh, which the company paid under protest.
Notifications under Section 168A need not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction since matter could be taken before appellate forum. It may appropriately be pursued before the competent statutory authority empowered to adjudicate factual disputes under the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Assessee contended that he had closed operations on 28.07.2017 and sought new registration under M/s Samyak Fashion (India). His provisional GSTIN under M/s Samyak International was allegedly misused by unknown persons, leading to wrongful availment and passing on of ITC.
Additions made on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period and disallowance of loss on the derivative transactions, were remanded for fresh adjudication after the verification of sales records and transaction nature.
The interest was earned from fixed deposits maintained with banks for the purpose of the business and related to the business of assessee. Interest was also earned on refund of taxes due to wrongful deduction of TDS by the customers of assessee.
Tribunal had imposed a cost of ₹2,000 on M/s. Udai Lal Mahabir Prasad for failing to explain the delay in filing its appeal and remanded the disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.
Even though the purpose for which such buildings were used was one and the same, irrespective of the persons/institutions owned, managed and aided such institutions, the fact that, the manner in which the institution was rendering services made out a crucial distinction
