NCLAT Delhi held that section 238 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] cannot override the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. Thus, attachment under PMLA cannot be undone merely because CIRP is ongoing.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods imported by fictious firms using fraudulently obtained IEC are liable for confiscation even if the said goods are not prohibited or restricted as per foreign trade policy. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed.
The assessee is a cooperative housing society located in Vile Parle, Mumbai and has been deriving rental income from commercial premises on the ground floor and partly in the basement. Notably, total amount of Rs. 2.40 Crores was granted by the Small Causes court as Mesne Profits to the assessee’s society.
Assessee is a foreign company and a tax resident of Mauritius. The assessee is carrying on investment activity in India by way of investments in shares and debentures of Indian companies through recognized stock exchanges in India.
ITAT Hyderabad held that denial of credit for Foreign Tax Credit merely due to delay in filing of Form 67 not justified as Form 67, although belatedly, was filed before the AO passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 68 towards bogus LTCG set aside as sale transaction of shares cannot be doubted. Thus, sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that enhanced credit under GST regime by revising TRAN-1 based on revising manually excise return within specified time limit is acceptable. Accordingly, order quashed and appeal allowed.
Karnataka High Court directs disposal of appeal without insisting on payment of 20% as pre-deposit since the same were high-pitched demands. Accordingly, unconditional stay granted and directions for disposal of appeal given.
An Enquiry has been ordered and on completion of the Enquiry an Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the Enquiry Report, the enquiry officer held that the appellant has violated the provisions of Regulation 10 (d) by not advising the importer to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
Madras High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Debt Recovery Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure.
