CESTAT Kolkata held that penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA could not be imposed where the importer submitted all relevant documents, including an emission certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal ruled that failure to identify any deficiency during assessment was attributable to Customs, not the importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the actual user condition imposed through a DGFT Public Notice could not be enforced against imports under a transferable post-export DFIA. The Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed issuance of a certificate for revalidation of expired DFIAs.
NCLT Mumbai dispensed with meetings of shareholders and certain creditors after noting that the transferor company was a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. The Tribunal held that no shares were required to be issued under the proposed amalgamation.
The Court held that the assessment and consequential demand could not stand where the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and offered a bona fide explanation. The matter was remanded to the notice stage for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the entire sale consideration could not be assessed as short-term capital gains without examining the cost of acquisition and improvement. It remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available records.
The NCLT Kochi held that a loan cannot be treated as secured financial debt during CIRP where the security interest exists only over the promoters’ personal assets. It directed reclassification of the claim as unsecured financial debt and ordered reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors, if required.
The ITAT Hyderabad accepted the assessee’s explanation that supporting documents could not be produced because the accountant was unavailable due to his son’s serious illness. It admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The Madras High Court upheld GST demands after finding that higher seigniorage fees and lower outward supply declarations provided sufficient basis to invoke Section 74. The Court ruled that the material on record justified proceedings for alleged suppression of turnover.
The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected solely because no separate condonation application was filed.
SEBI has introduced a lighter NISM certification for Persons Associated with Investment Advice who perform only sales and other non-core services. Core investment advisory personnel must continue to obtain the existing Level 1 and Level 2 certifications.
