Delhi High Court held that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules 2(vi) read with rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department. Thus, detention set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of CIRP duly admissible since One-Time Settlement with guarantors didn’t amount to full and final satisfaction of loan vis-à-vis the Corporate Debtor.
Gujarat High Court held that no writ petition is maintainable against the show cause notice under section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act when notice is self-speaking and self-explanatory. Accordingly, writ dismissed as alternate remedy to prefer an appeal before Tribunal available.
The Official Liquidator is directed to undertake and complete valuation of the building on S.F.No.79/1 through ITCOT at rates earlier approved by this Court within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The computation of the amount claimed in all three demand notices was never explained. It is quite apparent that while the guarantors in all the cases mentioned a limiting amount of the guarantor’s liability, the bank has simply demanded from them the amount of the loan outstanding in the principal borrower’s account.
Kerala High Court held that for claiming benefit of drawback it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension. Accordingly, writ disposed with direction to reconsider the claim.
Assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee is claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably, vide intimation u/s. 143(1), the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) was disallowed.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 issued beyond the surviving time limit as prescribed under Income Tax Act read with TOLA is barred by limitation. Accordingly, notice is quashed and writ petition allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the capital investment under the reseller agreement lacks the essential ingredients of financial debt under Section 5(8) (f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, dismissal of petition u/s. 7 for CIRP justified.
NCLAT Delhi held that direction of making contribution to the assets of Corporate Debtor upheld as person knowingly carried on the business of Corporate Debtor with intent to defraud creditors or for fraudulent purpose.
