Once Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with mandate of IBC Code.
Dhanwan Leasing and Finance Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Section 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in […]
ITAT Delhi held that AO drew belief on the reasons which were later found to be totally non-existent. Such defect in the reasons cannot be ascribed as a mere technical irregularity and consequently defect cannot be cured by applying Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
NCLT Mumbai held that petition under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) duly admissible, as two essential qualification i.e. ‘debt’ and ‘default’ existed.
ITAT Mumbai held that income earned from offshore supply of escalators and elevators is not taxable in India as assesse didn’t carried out any operations in India.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per circular F. No. B43/1/97-TRU dated 06/06/1997 services provided by a licensed Custom House Agent in very broad way, to include any service provided to a client in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods. Accordingly, whole range of activity is covered under CHA service.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose any material facts.
Madras High Court held that finalization of assessment without granting of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
