Karnataka High Court held that claims which are not a part of resolution plan stands extinguished, accordingly, no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.
CESTAT Delhi sets aside the order on sole reason that show cause notice doesn’t even state the allegations in respect of violation of four regulations under CBLR 2013 by customs broker. Thus, order quashed as notice is absolutely vague.
According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 imported manufacturing machines without payment of central excise duties of Rs.10,14,099/- and custom duties of Rs.51,00,988/- for the manufacturing of export goods.
Karnataka HC sets aside IT penalty on Cooperative Society due to unexplained genuineness doubts. Case sent back to AO for re-examination of cash deposit transactions.
Delhi HC directs reconsideration of GST cancellation for Pihu Enterprises. Prior proceedings cannot block cancellation but liabilities remain for past statutory violations.
Interest income from bank deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the funds in the voluntary reserves which were utilized for investment by the co-operative banks were the funds generated from the banking business.
As per AO, Shri Birat Chandra Dagara was one of the partner of the assessee firm and had owned the mining lease and submitted the details as per which the assessee was found indulged in the illegal production of iron ore.
Rajasthan High Court held that share of the employee in the provident fund deducted by the employer, has to be deposited as per the due date fixed by the EPF Act and ESI Act concerned and not as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that suspension of GST registration alleging non-compliance with rule 86B of CGST Rules not justified as assessee deposited required amount. Thus, petition allowed and direction given for restoration of GST registration.
Held that the export of services by the petitioner is an aspect which is neither disputed nor doubted. The only objection which is raised and which constitutes the basis for denial of refund is the remittance by VGSL to the bank account of the Bangalore office.
