DRI had jurisdiction and was empowered under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show cause notices (SCN) proceedings for recovery of drawback amounts peculiarly cases involving fraudulent or erroneous grant of drawback.
Professional fees and foreign branch expenses incurred by a strategic investment company were allowable under Section 37(1) in the absence of any finding that the expenditure was excessive, unreasonable
Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Since assessee failed to meet the mandatory eligibility conditions under Clause 4.4(ii) read with Annexure V of the RFP due to non-submission of LoAs/Work Experience Certificates. The rejection of assessee’s bid by NSIC was held to be lawful, justified, and […]
V. K. Sharma Vs JVG Finance Limited (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Appellant had failed to establish locus standi to challenge orders relating to asset realisation in liquidation and the material on record clearly demonstrated that liabilities of the company far exceeded available funds, making sale of assets necessary. Held: The company in liquidation (JVG Group) […]
Income Tax Department was directed to encash the Demand Draft, confirm the sale, and issue the Sale Certificate in favour of the highest bidder, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights.
Contempt Petition was not maintainable, as the NCLT had independent and effective jurisdiction under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 to punish for contempt of its own orders, including those passed under the IBC.
An unregistered Agreement to Sell (A2S) did not prevent recognition of asset transfer in the context of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as once consideration was paid and possession transferred
Service tax demand raised on the Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate for providing Bundobast and security services, holding that such services were sovereign functions and that the Government was not liable to service tax for the period prior to 1 June 2012.
Demand of service tax on remuneration paid to the Chairman and Directors was unsustainable as remuneration paid to the Directors constituted salary under an employer–employee relationship and was therefore not eligible to service tax.
High Court quashed the adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1) disallowing deduction under Section 10B and declared the rectification order to be null and void as allowability of deduction under Section 10B was examined during regular assessment proceedings and accepted
