Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
IBBI suspended the registration of the Petitioner for two years due to various allegations. The High Court found that the Petitioner did not violate any regulations by imposing a non-refundable participation fee on bidders before a specific regulation was in force. Regarding the appointment of unregistered valuers, the Court noted that the valuers involved were registered individually, and their work was accepted without issue. However, the Court upheld the charge of appointing a support service, BRAL, in which the Petitioner was a partner, to increase fees, which contravened Liquidation Regulations. The Court modified the suspension to the period already served, acknowledging 20 months of suspension already undergone. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
IBBI suspended the registration of the Petitioner for two years due to various allegations. The High Court found that the Petitioner did not violate any regulations by imposing a non-refundable participation fee on bidders before a specific regulation was in force. Regarding the appointment of unregistered valuers, the Court noted that the valuers involved were registered individually, and their work was accepted without issue. However, the Court upheld the charge of appointing a support service, BRAL, in which the Petitioner was a partner, to increase fees, which contravened Liquidation Regulations. The Court modified the suspension to the period already served, acknowledging 20 months of suspension already undergone. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
