Explore Bombay High Court’s ruling on Hasmukh Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, challenging reassessment based on internal audit objections and a ‘change of opinion.
Delhi High Court held that as revenue has failed to lodge the claim with the Resolution Professional, they cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of approved Resolution Plan.
Penalty under section 271FAA was deleted as the defects in the statement of the reportable account were rectified within the time limit provided under sub-section (4) of Section 285BA.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty u/s. 112 not imposable as goods are not held liable for confiscation. Further, penalty cannot be imposed on EOUs for failure to achieve positive NFE.
CESTAT Bangalore held that without any such evidences based on the examination report of live consignment, one cannot extrapolate the same to the past consignments. Accordingly, demand for all the past consignments set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of closed assessment which has reached culmination without any actionable material is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
Board is the authority to regulate the functioning of the Insolvency Professionals and the Board comprises of experts in the field who have been appointed by the Central Government to carry out the functions specified under Part IV of the IBC.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt Ltd, allowing CENVAT credit for Management Consultancy Services and halting enforcement of demand notice.
ITAT Mumbai upholds addition in Osianama Learning Experience Pvt. Ltd. case under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, related to excess consideration received on allotment of shares.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on C.C.E. & S.T vs. Shreno Limited case regarding excise duty demand under Rule 6(3) of CCR when CENVAT credit is reversed on common input services for exempted steam.
