INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Circular Ref: IRDAI/IID/GDL/MISC/225/10/2022 | Dated: 26.10.2022 To, All General and Health Insurers Sub: – Master Guidelines on AML/CFT 2022 – extension of time for Implementation This has reference to Master Guidelines on Anti-Money Laundering/ Counter Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT), 2022 issued vide ref. IRDAI/IID/GDL/MISC/ 160/8/2022 dated 1st August 2022. […]
Whether the ‘Operational Creditor’ can change the ‘date of default’ by confining the invoices to a later period, when the Demand Notice under section 8 includes all the invoices from the date of default and the ‘debt amount’ is crystallized based on the invoices.
RKR. Gold P. Ltd Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) The criminal investigation wing is separate and distinct from the assessment wing and disclosure made before one wing will not exonerate the petitioner from the requirement of making a ‘full and true disclosure’ before the assessing officer in assessment. In fact, the apparent difference in the […]
Sreedhar Tripathy Vs Gujarat State Financial Corporation & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi) The grievance of the Appellant is that CoC’s decision is arbitrary decision, it cannot be said to be decision taken in commercial wisdom of the CoC. Section 33 Sub-section (2) of the I&B Code which deals with initiation of liquidation. The Explanation under Section […]
Adjudicating Authority is empowered to consider any application filed by the Liquidator or Successful Auction Purchaser, which may arise with regard to terms and conditions of auction sale or sale as going concern as per the Liquidation Regulation
It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that it was a case of wrong mentioning of the Section and the case would fall under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. It is pointed out that, in the show cause notice, there was a reference to Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act. It is submitted that therefore on mere wrong mentioning of Section, the levy of penalty shall not fail.
Surinder Kumar Malhotra Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The relevant facts of the case are that qua the Long Term Capital Gain available to the assessee in the year under consideration deduction u/s 54 of the Act was claimed. The said claim was disallowed holding that the proceeds have been applied to acquiring two separate properties. […]
Siba International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant-Exporter Siba International was engaged in export of processed buffalo meat after procuring the same from M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods, Moradabad (UP) an approved processing plant for export of boneless buffalo meat as a prescribed condition under Chapter […]
The request to repatriate the assigned capital shall be submitted by the Foreign Reinsurer, who is engaged in reinsurance business through a branch established in India, justifying the reasons for such request;
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court) 1. In all these writ petitions seizure orders and notices issued under sections 129 (1) and (3), respectively, by various authorities, mainly on the ground that E-Way Bill-01 under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.G.S.T ACT) […]
