ITAT Delhi held that revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as no disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act is permissible if no exempt income is earned. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that foundation of reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong facts is not justifiable. Hence, reopening of assessment is liable to be quashed.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] filed by Financial Creditor [SBI] u/s. 7 of IBC against Corporate Debtor [Raninga Paper Mills Private Limited] is admitted as existence of financial debt and default demonstrated.
Bombay High Court held that seventh proviso in Section 2(b) of the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act (MED) is constitutionally valid and entertainment duty leviable on convenience fees collected for online ticket booking.
NCLAT Delhi held that amount having not been received from the corporate debtor, there was no applicability of Section 14 of the IBC and moratorium was not applicable with regard to any payment by co-applicant. Thus, direction of adjudicating authority for reversal of amount is unsustainable.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that extinguishment of debt under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] wouldn’t ipso facto apply to extinguishment of criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [NI Act]. Accordingly, present petition fails.
Jharkhand High Court held that order passed u/s. 74 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for agreeing with the order passed by the Assessing Authority. Thus, absence of reasons is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.
There exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Madras High Court held that recovery of availed duty drawback beyond period of three years from the date of respective shipment is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is directed to reconsider the matter after affording personal hearing as order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Supreme Court held that the commercial wisdom of the CoC must, accordingly, be given primacy during the CIRP. Once CoC decides that retention of the possession of the subject property was not in the interest of the CIRP, that decision must be given the respect that is lawfully due to it.
