Supreme Court upheld restoration of original Committee of Creditors and ruled that IRP could not independently reclassify financial creditors after constitution of CoC under IBC framework.
CESTAT Chennai held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on its behalf. Since the plastic caps were used by the principal manufacturer and not captively consumed by the job worker, the duty demand was set aside.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay High Court regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(via). The matter was remanded for reconsideration after final disposal of the writ petitions.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge to depreciation claims on leased assets after the Bombay High Court held that leasing constituted business use under Section 32. The ruling reaffirmed that physical use by the assessee is not necessary where assets are used in the leasing business.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax demand raised merely on differences between ST-3 returns and Income Tax Returns without proper examination of records was unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Additional Excise Duty introduced from 11.07.2014 could not be imposed on goods manufactured before the levy came into force, even if cleared later.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Kerala AAR held that advance ruling applications cannot be based on hypothetical scenarios or academic questions. The Authority rejected the application because it did not relate to any actual or proposed supply undertaken by the applicant.
