The Tribunal held that appeals against liquidator decisions must be filed within 14 days. It ruled that delays beyond this period cannot be condoned.
The Court held that rejecting an appeal for wrong jurisdiction without proper mechanism was a mistake. It restored the appeal and directed its transmission to the correct authority.
The Tribunal held that all resolution plans were rightly rejected as they offered values below liquidation value. It emphasized that the CoC’s commercial judgment, based on financial viability, cannot be interfered with unless statutory provisions are violated. The ruling reinforces that business decisions of the CoC are paramount in insolvency proceedings.
The issue was whether share capital addition could be sustained without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in absence of incriminating material, the addition under Section 68 is invalid.
The issue was whether proceedings under Section 153C were time-barred. The Tribunal held that the assessment fell outside the limitation period and was therefore invalid.
The issue was whether additions could be made in unabated assessments without incriminating material. The Tribunal held that such additions are invalid, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly taxed an investment in an incorrect assessment year. Evidence showed the purchase occurred earlier than the year under consideration. The decision highlights the importance of correct year-wise taxation.
The issue involved whether credit could be availed when duties were paid via DEPB instead of cash. The Tribunal held that such payment qualifies for CENVAT credit. The takeaway is that mode of payment does not restrict credit eligibility.
The issue involved penalty on individuals claiming ignorance of smuggled gold. The Tribunal rejected the defence due to lack of evidence and inconsistencies. The takeaway is that unsupported claims cannot negate liability.
The issue involved taxability of subsidies received from BCCI. The Tribunal held that such payments are grants-in-aid and not consideration for services. The takeaway is that grants for promotion of sports are not taxable.
