Karnataka High Court held that for AY 2014-2015, assessee couldn’t be classified as wholesale trader as both the specified conditions are not satisfied. Accordingly, in terms of notification no. 30/2013 tolerance range of 3% to be adopted.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that exemption notification no. 57/2000 issued u/s. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 prevails over CBEC circular and hence since exemption notification does not stipulate that only imported gold should be used to manufacture goods for export there is no such requirement.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once the resolution plan is approved by the NCLT and the Company has been sold on going concern basis, whatever claims made before the Liquidator is final and all past or existing liabilities shall extinguish. Accordingly, matter restored back to re-examine claim made before liquidator.
Held that the statutory right of a Financial Creditor bestowed u/s. 7 of the ‘IBC’ cannot be curtailed to any ‘Inter-Creditor Agreement’ or Consortium agreement executed between the lender banks, as the same was only for regulating the inter se affairs of the consortium and the OTS proposal cannot be claimed by a borrower as a matter of right.
ITAT Delhi held that applicability of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without initially fixing the addition under any of the charging provisions i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that operational debt in terms of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code doesn’t include interest unless interest is payable in terms of any agreement among parties
Supreme Court held that High Court observation regarding appellant’s advised to importer to mis-declare imported goods is incorrect since it was not a case of mis-declaration but a case of mis-classification. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
ITAT Hyderabad held that levy of late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Income Tax Act for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarter TDS return in Form 26Q not justified since all the 3 quarter returns filed on or before due date of filing 4th quarter return and reasonable cause shown. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable since application filed after expiry of period of three years is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLT Kolkata taking recourse to section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code directs closure of CIRP since initiation of CIRP was done fraudulently with malicious intent to escape from government dues and for wrongful gain.
