Calcutta High Court held that compounding application under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 cannot be maintained post completion of adjudication process. Accordingly, appeal failed and hereby dismissed.
Uttarakhand High Court held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source and the disallowance made was rightly directed to be deleted. Accordingly, writ of revenue dismissed.
This provision cannot be used as right for any person to claim that he is entitled to give its opinion to the Court on any question of law involved in a case. We, thus, are of the view that Rule 8A needs to be applied keeping the objects and reasons of rule as above.
Delhi High Court granted regular bail in view of absence of evidence/ material alleging connection of petitioner in GST bogus firm registration case and also petitioner being in judicial custody for almost 8 months.
ITAT Panaji held that ad-hoc determination of taxable income without invoking special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act not only jostled ad-hoc & irrational estimations but led to farfetched determination due to complexity of business. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Lokshakti Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by Geetanjali Sugar Private Limited meeting requirements of section 30(2) of the IBC stands approved.
Delhi High Court held that liability of deceased guarantor to repay debt shall fall upon legal representative. Hence, petitioner being legal representative of deceased guarantor is liable to make pre-deposits as envisaged in section 21 of the Recovery and Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [RDB Act].
NCLT Delhi held that the power of the Tribunal to restore the name of a struck off company under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not a suo motu power. The restoration application is dismissed due to lack of diligence.
Kerala High Court held that no taxable event under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act [KVAT Act] had occurred in respect of displaying advertisement on hoardings as there was no transfer of right to use the hoardings. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
CESTAT Chennai held that affixation of MRP on packages of imported goods containing quantity of more than 25 Kgs is not mandatory. Hence, differential duty demand for non-affixation of MRP cannot be sustained.
