Kerala High Court held that the issue relating requirement of separate notification as contemplated by the provisions of section 6(1) of the CGST Act for cross-empowerment requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.
Delhi High Court held that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to counter the allegation that it was a conduit company without any substance. Thus, the appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that provisions of section 98 of the IBC enables Financial Creditor to apply for replacement of Resolution Professional. Notably, filing of application by resolution professional is immaterial.
CESTAT Mumbai quashes ₹1,00,000 penalty on co-noticee under Section 112(b) of Customs Act, citing lack of evidence linking him to DEEC scheme violations. Read full order.
NCLT Ahmedabad approved application filed u/s. 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 by Mahan Industries Limited for reduction of share capital as approved by the Shareholders by passing a Special Resolution.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted disallowance of sales promotion expenditure since disallowance constitutes small percentage as compared to turnover of the assessee and also there is no allegation of expenditure incurred in cash.
Madras High Court held that proviso 3 to section 161 of the CGST Act provides that it is mandatory to grant an opportunity of being heard if rectification order is detrimental to the interest of assessee.
Damodar Nayak Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) (CESTAT Mumbai) Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) restored an appeal after two years, observing that the appellant was not served with a notice of the final hearing due to an incorrect address provided by the previous advocate. The tribunal noted that the earlier counsel […]
Madras HC quashes order for GST assessment, stating no opportunity was given to reply to Show Cause Notice, violating natural justice principles.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance @10% of personnel expenditure not justified since AO mistakenly presumed expenses claimed by assessee as personal expenditure instead of personnel expenditure. Thus, appeal allowed.
