NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against personal guarantor u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
IFSCA’s 23rd meeting approved new regulations for capital market intermediaries, KYC agencies, and fund management, promoting transparency and ease of doing business.
NCLT Mumbai approved ACME Cleantech Solutions Private Limited resolution plan as moved by resolution professional of Reliance Big Private Limited The present Application is moved by Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra (“Applicant”), Resolution Professional of Reliance Big Private Limited (“Corporate debtor”) under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31 (l) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Kerala High Court held that commencement of GST audit u/s. 65 means date on which records and documents are made available by registered person. Hence, GST audit ought to be completed within 3 months from the said date.
Madras High Court held that extension of period for bringing immovable property to sale by auction is justifiable since time limit got extended as per proviso to rule 68B. Thus, writ petition stands dismissed.
Learn the detailed process for registering a political party with the Election Commission of India, including required documents, fees, and submission guidelines.
ITAT Jaipur quashes PCIT order revising assessment of Auro Iron, citing insufficient inquiry and overreach on reassessment grounds.
Supreme Court & Bombay HC uphold GST error rectification rights, ensuring ITC claims for bonafide buyers despite supplier errors, fostering fair taxation practices.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer renders assessment bad-in-law. Thus, assessment order is bad-in-law and hence liable to be quashed.
