An Indian citizen was caught by the Customs Department attempting to depart with 15,000 U.S. Dollars concealed without valid documentation, leading to the absolute confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
The Orissa High Court dismissed a plea by a Managing Director to discharge himself from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments NI Act, 1881, following his company’s entry into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process CIRP under the IBC, 2016.
AAR Gujarat held that input tax credit is admissible on cables, electrical equipment, and installation services used to connect power from GETCO’s substation to a factory, even when installed beyond factory limits.
Gujarat AAR ruled that the ₹60 crore transfer of RDB Realty s Surat housing project qualifies as a transfer of a going concern and is exempt from GST under Notification No. 12/2017.
Bombay High Court quashed the Section 127 transfer of a former CFO’s case from Mumbai to Delhi, ruling that the basis for transfer coordinated investigation eased once the main company’s assessment was complete.
The Gujarat High Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to disallow 25% of bogus purchases shown by Vijay Proteins Ltd., but quashed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
Allahabad High Court rules in Aysha Builders case that generating an e-way bill after vehicle detention is non-compliant, frustrating the GST Act’s purpose, and upholds the Rs 75,600 penalty.
GSTAT holds no profiteering under Section 171 CGST Act in IREO’s Skyon, Ireo City Central, and Managed Service Apartment projects as post-GST ITC benefit did not increase.
GSTAT ruled that no additional input tax credit benefit accrued to developer after GST implementation, leading to closure of anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171 of CGST Act.
ITAT Delhi confirmed that a statutory development authority’s activities, such as land development and housing, are charitable under Section 2(15), not commercial. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency, relying on multiple High Court and ITAT precedents for similar development bodies.
