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...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governs abatement of appeals in case of liquidation proceedings. The appellant company faced recovery of irregular CENVAT credit availed, along with interest and penalty. NCLT Chennai ordered liquidation of the appellant vide order dated 19.03.2018. The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy registered its claim with the Liquidator. As the Official Liquidator did not apply for continuance of the appeal u/r 22, the appeal abated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to the liquidation proceedings and non-application by the Liquidator for continuance.
Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 governs abatement of appeals in case of liquidation proceedings. The appellant company faced recovery of irregular CENVAT credit availed, along with interest and penalty. NCLT Chennai ordered liquidation of the appellant vide order dated 19.03.2018. The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Trichy registered its claim with the Liquidator. As the Official Liquidator did not apply for continuance of the appeal u/r 22, the appeal abated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to the liquidation proceedings and non-application by the Liquidator for continuance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
