The application filed on 11th October, 2012 was not pressed and subsequently on 3rd July, 2013 another application was filed by the Respondents claiming compensation amount of USD 745580, maximum penalty of 50% and maximum interest of 12%.
NCLAT Delhi held that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in approving the Resolution Plan. Since the gratuity and provident fund of the workers having been admitted in full and paid in full in the Resolution Plan.
Madras High Court held that petitioner didn’t furnished the reply even after providing the extra time limit as requested by the petitioner. Hence, writ petition dismissed and passing of assessment order justified.
Madras High Court held that delay in filing returns of income and seeking refund thereof is condoned in terms coverage within the scope of the expression ‘genuine hardship’ in section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that due to unwanted delay in de novo proceedings by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the refund claim of redemption fine and penalty is directed to be processed. Accordingly, refund granted.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled on Prakash Udyog Ltd. vs ITO, addressing errors in income computation, disallowance under section 14A, and overdraft interest disallowance.
Rajasthan High Court affirms that right to health is integral to the right to life, emphasizing government responsibility for accessible healthcare services.
CESTAT Allahabad held that customs duty leviable on manufacturing of stainless steel coils under Advance Authorisation Scheme is exempt. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund of CVD paid on the same.
ITAT partially allows appeal, ruling that unsupported statements without corroborative evidence are insufficient for additions under Section 68. Key judicial observations.
ITAT Jaipur upheld income additions in Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT due to undisclosed cash investments under Section 69 and questioned documentation on financial sources.
