On the date of approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority, all such claims which are not a part of Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not a part of the Resolution Plan.
In a recent case, the ITAT found that the assessee did not receive a fair opportunity to represent its case before the first appellate authority due to circumstances beyond its control. As a result, the ITAT set aside the first appellate authority’s orders and restored the matters for a fresh decision.
In a recent case (Howrah Improvement Trust vs. DCIT) heard by ITAT Kolkata, the addition of government grants as corpus or income was deleted.
A deep dive into the Kute Sons Dairys Ltd Vs PCIT case, highlighting implications of an assessment completed without proper inquiry and legal justifications for invoking revision u/s 263.
CAAR Mumbai rules ‘LED Socket Plug Assembly’ used in vehicle anti-fog lamps classifies under Heading 8512 90 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and is eligible for nil Basic Custom Duty under serial no. 656 of notification No. 69/2011-Cus., dated 29.7.2011, as per India-Japan Free Trade Agreement.
CESTAT Delhi in case of Quality Builders & Contractor vs Commissioner of Central Excise, set a new precedent for service tax refund claims.
Recent CESTAT Kolkata case, Lexmark International vs CGST & CX, highlighting significance of giving parties opportunity to present their cases and documents
Landmark decision by Delhi High Court in the case of Alok Malhotra vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India, addressing an anomaly in salary caused by an Accelerated Promotion Scheme.
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
