Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
