The Karnataka High Court held that the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory in every case. It quashed the stay rejection orders and directed disposal of the appeals without insisting on the pre-deposit.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
This article explains how Electronic Gold Receipts (EGRs) create a regulated, exchange-traded market backed by physical gold. It highlights their features, regulatory framework, and the challenges affecting wider adoption.
The Advocates Tax Bar Association has requested extension of the GSTAT appeal filing deadline to 31 December 2026, citing persistent portal-related technical difficulties. The representation argues that taxpayers should not lose their statutory right of appeal due to system issues.
This article explains how cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the GST law is meant to facilitate coordinated enforcement without allowing duplicate proceedings. It highlights the need for a formal mechanism to allocate jurisdiction and prevent harassment through parallel actions.
The NCLT Bengaluru directed the bank to hand over the original title deeds after finding that the successful resolution applicant had paid the entire amount under the approved resolution plan. It held that pending litigation over interest did not justify withholding the documents.
The NCLT Bengaluru admitted the CIRP application after finding that the corporate debtor had expressly acknowledged the operational debt and default. It held that financial hardship did not defeat admission under the IBC.
The NCLT Chennai directed meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors to consider a composite scheme involving demerger and amalgamation. The order lays down the process for stakeholder approval under Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act.
The NCLT Chennai waived equity shareholder meetings after both shareholders of the transferor and transferee companies consented to the amalgamation through affidavits. It directed meetings only for unsecured creditors.
NCLT Guwahati restored the company’s name after finding that it continued to own immovable property and had contemporaneous records showing business operations before its strike-off. The Tribunal held that these facts justified restoration under Section 252(3), while directing compliance with all pending statutory requirements.
