The application raised questions on GST rates, invoicing of washed coal transactions, and Compensation Cess on coal rejects. The Authority disposed of the matter after allowing voluntary and unconditional withdrawal of the application.
The ITAT held that an assessee can contest a Section 143(1) adjustment in an appeal against the assessment order if the adjustment is retained therein. The case emphasizes that multiple statutory remedies may coexist.
The Tribunal held that when the importer itself was exonerated on the ground that the classification dispute was interpretational, Customs Brokers acting on the importer’s instructions could not be penalized for abetment. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that denial of effective cross-examination in proceedings founded on statements and investigation reports caused serious prejudice to the Customs Broker. Since the revocation proceedings lacked procedural fairness, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the first payment due under the approved resolution plan remained entirely unpaid despite repeated opportunities. The inability or unwillingness to honour financial commitments under the plan led to liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
The case examined whether insolvency proceedings against a guarantor could continue after resolution plans for principal borrowers were approved. The Tribunal ruled that the guarantee remained enforceable as no actual discharge of liability had occurred.
CESTAT Chennai: Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed for Non-Compliance of Pre-Deposit When Mandatory Deposit Was Already Made; Matter Remanded on Merits
The Court held that, for assessment year 2009-10, filing the audit report along with the return was directory and not mandatory. Deduction under Section 80IA could not be denied when the report was furnished during assessment proceedings.
The Chennai ITAT held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 on matters already under consideration before the appellate authority. The ruling emphasises the statutory bar against parallel revision proceedings on the same issue.
The Chennai ITAT held that excess stock found during a survey could not be taxed as unexplained investment when it had been accounted for in the books and offered as business income. The ruling emphasises that a satisfactory explanation regarding the source of stock defeats the application of Section 69B.
