Supreme Court held that resolution plan by Successful Resolution Application i.e. Piramal Capital and Housing Limited for Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd [DHFL] stands approved. Accordingly, appeal filed by assessee dismissed.
Patna High Court held that compounding charge should be deposited by the petitioner abiding his statement and issue of apportionment of compounding charges should be considered by the Secretary, Rural Works Department.
ITAT Delhi held that while computing total income as per Rule 5 r.w. section 44, provisions of section 14A are not applicable. Further, disallowance method of computation of prescribed under Rule 8D is not applicable while “Book Profit” u/s 115JB.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for failure to honour repayment obligation justified since application filed within limitation period. Accordingly, present appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that initiation of the IRP proceeding u/s. 95 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against personal guarantor upheld as no principle of natural justice has been violated, and that the Resolution Professional has given sufficient opportunities.
ITAT Raipur held that disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act towards unpaid VAT liability cannot be sustained since the amount was not claimed as an expenditure in P&L account. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessment order passed against non-existent entity is an invalid assessment order and hence entire assessment framed is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on department for disregarding the directions by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] and matter remanded for fresh de novo order.
Kerala High Court directs CBI investigation into the allegations of amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income against Chief Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala.
The prohibition from allowing input tax credit is a statutory mandate, and the view taken by the orders impugned, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is available and correct.
