NCLAT Delhi held that the core issue of any insolvency proceeding is debt and default. Accordingly, when debt and default is undisputedly established, the Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in accepting the Section 7 application for initiation of CIRP.
Madras High Court held that Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not justified in remanding the matter since authority has recorded a clear finding that explanations offered by assessee were very satisfactory. Accordingly, order remanding the matter quashed and appeal is allowed.
Ahmedabad ITAT deletes ₹34 lakh disallowance on commission and job-work. TDS compliance proven via Form 26AS, and commission nexus established by increased sales.
Appellant thereafter filed a Restoration Application (RA), which too was dismissed for non-appearance. A second Restoration Application was then filed, along with a Delay Condonation Application, which sought to explain a delay of 160 days in filing the second RA.
Kolkata ITAT rules that delayed Form 67 filing isn’t fatal to FTC claim. FTC is a substantive right under Section 90; Rule 128’s timeline is directory, not mandatory.
Customs Broker must exercise due diligence and advise clients to comply with the law and on failure of the same attracted penal action even without intent. However, revocation of licence was justified only in serious cases of fraud or deliberate misconduct.
ITAT Jaipur holds u/s 159 that penalty survives assessee’s death and is enforceable against the legal heir. Recovery is strictly limited to the value of the inherited assets or estate.
Adjudicating Authority had imposed a combined penalty under sections Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA without proper application of statutory provisions and directed reconsideration of penalty in accordance with law.
The writ petitioners challenged the public auction notice before the D.R.T under section 17 which was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution. In the year 2007, due to devastating flood, all the costly machines were defunct.
Where the only piece of evidence, AO possessed was the ‘Iqrarnama’, which was not found in the assessee’s possession, was not in their handwriting, and did not bear their genuine signatures, no addition could be made to the assessee’s income, treating it as unexplained money and interest.
