NCLAT held that foreign oil and gas assets owned through Videocon subsidiaries could not be included in the CIRP of Videocon Industries Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that subsidiaries and parent companies are distinct legal entities under insolvency law.
High Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings could not culminate in dismissal without granting the employee an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Tribunal noted that the CIRP period, including all extensions, had reached 741 days and expired on 20 November 2025. Since no plan was approved by the CoC, liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC was ordered.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation after holding that one income tax return reflected earnings only up to the accident date and could not be treated as annual income.
The NCLT Mumbai held that liquidation became mandatory under Section 33(2) of the IBC after the Committee of Creditors rejected all resolution plans with a 95.63% voting share. The Tribunal ruled that, in the absence of an approved plan, liquidation proceedings had to be initiated.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid through MEIS duty credit scrips for past imports constituted valid discharge of customs duty liability. The Tribunal held that any fresh cash recovery by the Revenue would amount to impermissible double recovery.
Tribunal ruled that payments made for transfer of technology, technical documents, and manufacturing assistance under an inter-governmental agreement did not amount to Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service. It held that the arrangement related to technology transfer for aircraft production and not taxable consultancy.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to appoint a Chief Financial Officer after crossing the prescribed paid-up capital threshold. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act, 2013.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere trading in air tickets did not amount to taxable “Tour Operator” service. The Tribunal ruled that retaining discounts on ticket sales was outside the scope of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that earlier GST cancellation history became irrelevant once the exporter possessed valid GST registration on the transaction date. The Tribunal set aside revocation of the Customs Broker License.
