The NCLT Delhi dispensed with meetings of secured and unsecured creditors after finding that the proposed demerger involved no compromise with creditors and did not adversely affect their rights. Only the resulting company’s equity shareholders were directed to convene a meeting.
CESTAT Allahabad held that interest under Section 11BB becomes payable after three months from the date of the refund application, not from the appellate order granting refund. The Tribunal awarded statutory interest on the delayed refund while rejecting the claim for interest on interest.
The Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot deny Form 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme due to a technical portal error that wrongly mapped the taxpayer’s payment. It directed correction of the error and issuance of Form 5 after verification of the challan.
The Calcutta High Court held that KMC’s retrospective enhancement of Annual Valuation and consequential property tax demands lacked statutory authority and violated mandatory procedural safeguards. The Court restored the earlier valuation and permitted fresh assessment only in accordance with the KMC Act.
The Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained credits once the sales and books of account are accepted. The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition as it resulted in double taxation of the same income.
The ITAT Delhi held that only 1% of the gross bank transactions could be assessed as income after finding that the assessee acted as a commission agent. It upheld the CIT(A)’s reliance on the consistent approach adopted in the preceding assessment year.
The ITAT held that sales tax subsidy granted under industrial incentive schemes constituted a capital receipt because its purpose was industrial development rather than business profits. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the subsidy was excluded from taxable income and book profits.
The NCLT allowed the first motion application for a demerger scheme and dispensed with meetings of the Resulting Company’s equity shareholders and unsecured creditors because all had provided consent affidavits. It directed meetings only for the Demerged Company’s stakeholders and laid down the procedure for further approval.
The Tribunal found the amalgamation application maintainable and noted compliance with valuation, accounting standards, board approvals, and disclosure requirements. It allowed the first motion application while directing further statutory compliances before sanction of the Scheme.
The article examines how Section 122(1A) broadens GST penalty provisions beyond taxable persons to beneficiaries and participants. It also analyses issues relating to multiple penalties, retrospective application and emerging judicial trends.
