The Appellate Tribunal upheld dismissal of a CIRP application after finding that the creditor’s own pleadings fixed the default during the Section 10A exclusion period. The key takeaway is that insolvency proceedings are permanently barred for such defaults.
The court refused bail after finding prima facie evidence of large-scale GST evasion through online gaming transactions. The ruling highlights that high-value tax fraud attracts strict non-bailable consequences.
The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance where interest-free funds were higher than tax-free investments. It reaffirmed that no interest disallowance arises in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that Countervailing Duty applies only to castings, even if they form part of sub-assemblies or components, and remitted the case for valuation of castings.
The court held that seizures carried out and served in another state did not give rise to jurisdiction merely because testing and headquarters were in Delhi, directing parties to the appropriate High Court.
The Tribunal held that when interest-free funds exceed exempt-income investments, no interest disallowance under Section 14A can be made. The ruling reinforces the presumption laid down by the Supreme Court.
The courts held that when depreciation on goodwill is allowed after detailed examination, the assessment cannot be revised as erroneous. The key takeaway is that a plausible and informed assessment order bars revision under Section 263.
The Bombay High Court held that insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors cannot continue before the DRT once CIRP of the corporate debtor is underway. Such proceedings must lie exclusively before the NCLT. The key takeaway is that Section 60 of the IBC overrides DRT jurisdiction in these cases.
The AAR held that medicated toilet soap cannot claim the 5% GST rate meant for ordinary toilet soap, as its therapeutic nature places it under a separate tariff entry attracting 18% GST.
The ruling refused to admit the application, noting that the pure agent issue on electricity reimbursement had already been decided during audit. Advance ruling was barred under Section 98(2) once the matter stood concluded.
