NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Corporate Debtor [Shivom Investment and Consultancy Limited] as submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant [Prashantbhai Ghanshyambhai Ukani] stands approved as meets the requirement of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
Madras High Court held that writ filed alleging wrong classification of goods cannot be entertained due to availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before CESTAT. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on the basis of interest paid on cash loans received by the assessee is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee are partly allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of shark fins without any evidence that there was an attempt to export the same is not justifiable. Accordingly, order confiscating goods set aside and appeal allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that accrued interest in a loan sale is part of the purchase consideration, not interest. This means a borrower-lender relationship doesn’t exist, and TDS is not required.
Madras High Court held that date of receipt of copy of order is to be accepted in absence of any contrary evidence by the respondents/ department. Accordingly, dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation not justified. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
Learn about India’s Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, its key provisions, and how it protects all female employees from harassment.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, establishes a legal framework for the sector, defining and regulating different game types while imposing strict penalties on online money games.
ITAT Delhi ruled a CIT(A) order invalid, stating it had no jurisdiction once a superior authority (PCIT) had already allowed a revision under Section 264.
