Service Tax : Despite doing away with the service-specific descriptions, there will be some descriptions where some differential treatment will ...
Income Tax : The Parliament has passed the the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2009 which is to replace the Competition (Amendment) Ordinance, 20...
Income Tax : The government is likely to seek the Cabinet’s approval on amending the Competition Act 2002 to facilitate the winding up of the...
Income Tax : After a lull, the contentious provisions regarding mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) of the amended Competition Act is back on th...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Service Tax : Profit arising from purchase and sale of cargo space by a freight forwarder on principal-to-principal basis was trading income and...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/...
Company Law : The tribunal held that mere suspicion or possibility of fraud without supporting evidence cannot justify action under Section 66 o...
Company Law : Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valua...
Service Tax : Notification No. 43/2009-Service Tax Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding...
Service Tax : Notification No. 33/2009 - Service Tax Central Government hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person in relation to...
Income Tax : That the said Association will submit to the prescribed authority by 30th June, each year, a copy of their audited annual accounts...
Since valid service of notice was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before initiating reassessment proceedings, therefore, purported notices issued under Section 148 including reassessment proceedings under
NCLAT Chennai held that suspended directors rightly directed to pay amount to liquidation estate of Corporate Debtor since evidence presented did substantiated the determination of fraudulent transaction as envisaged under Section 66 of the IBC.
NCLT Kochi held that proposed reduction of paid-up capital is justified on commercial grounds, duly approved by the shareholders, and does not adversely affect any creditors, employees, or other stakeholders. The reduction is proportionate and lawful u/s. 66 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Since common input services were used for both taxable output and trading, assessee was required to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading along with interest. Penalty under Rule 15(3) to be confined to proportionate irregular credit finally determined.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant doesn’t qualify as a Financial Creditor since appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loan is liable to be sustained since the assessee has miserably failed to establish the essential three ingredients as prescribed in section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that date of surrender of bank guarantee to be considered as relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
NCLT Kolkata taking recourse to section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code directs closure of CIRP since initiation of CIRP was done fraudulently with malicious intent to escape from government dues and for wrongful gain.
NCLT Mumbai rejected the application u/s. 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] seeking approval of resolution plan since the same didn’t meet all the criteria laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Code read with Regulations 36A and 39 of the CIRP Regulations.
NCLAT Delhi held that order rejecting application for intervention under section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is set aside and intervention petition is revived since application is not filed to derail CIRP. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
