In the instant case, a Financial Creditor was an NBFC engaged in the business of providing finance to a wide range of customers including small and medium enterprises. The Corporate Debtor carried on the business as a dealer and manufacturer in automobiles, automobile spare parts and components etc.
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) was allowable for a 16-day delay in depositing Employees’ Provident Fund by the assessee as delay was attributable due to the lockdown consequent upon the COVID-19 pandemic.
The question whether the contractual work was an exempt construction activity or taxable manpower supply required fact-finding, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the writ court as Court did not sit in appeal or reappreciate evidence, but only reviews the decision-making process, therefore, assessee had an efficacious appellate remedy under the statute.
Since the last date, or the surviving time, for issuing a valid notice under Section 148 for this specific case was June 17, 2022 and the actual notice was issued on August 24, 2022, it was clearly barred by limitation.
Some of the concerns which were raised by assessee such as right to privacy of the family being violated, etc., deserve to be addressed as any family-related CCTV footage which was with the GST department and violated the privacy of family members could not be used or disseminated in any manner.
While securing the Revenues interest under Section 110A of the Customs Act, conditions for provisional release should not be unduly harsh. Requirement to furnish Bank Guarantee of ₹22 lakhs was modified with execution of bond of Rs. 22 lakh.
Scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, was limited, as the ruling obtained was binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962.
The contention of substantial compliance could not override the mandatory time limits under the notification. As there was no statutory requirement of an Eligibility Certificate, and the application for fixation of rebate was filed beyond the prescribed time, the appeal was devoid of merit.
The principal issue for determination was whether the segregation of the appellant’s trial and filing of a separate charge-sheet solely on account of his being an MLA was legally sustainable, given the statutory framework under CrPC and constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality.
Assessee did not comply with subsequent statutory notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144, where the entire cash deposit was added back to its income under section 69A.
