The tribunal upheld rejection of a resolution applicant’s EOI for not meeting the minimum net worth requirement set by the CoC. It ruled that MSME status does not exempt compliance with eligibility criteria fixed under IBC.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal held that without independent verification, such demands are unsustainable and must be set aside.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
The case examined whether ITC reversal made during inspection was voluntary. The Court held that the timing and presence of authorities indicated lack of voluntariness. It further restored proceedings to protect the Revenue’s statutory rights and allowed fresh action.
The case examined whether settlement of a corporate guarantee liability qualifies as business expenditure. The Tribunal held that the guarantee was given for business purposes and the resulting payment was allowable.
The case examined whether transaction value can be rejected without inquiry. The Tribunal held that absence of investigation and proper procedure invalidates valuation enhancement.
The case addressed whether stock discrepancies could be attributed to a sister concern. The Court held that absence of supporting evidence justified the VAT demand and confirmed the assessment.
The issue was whether share transactions constituted business income or capital gains. The Court upheld investor status based on consistent treatment and factual findings, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
