Gujarat High Court held that charge in favour of secured creditor would precede over the unsecured creditor. Thus, secured creditor will have first charge over the property as against State Government (crowns debt).
CESTAT Delhi held that attempt to smuggle gold by breaching the condition for import makes it a prohibited goods. Accordingly, such prohibited goods cannot be allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine or cannot be permitted for re-export. Hence, such prohibited goods is liable for absolute confiscation.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment invoking provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act inspired from a review and a change of opinion is liable to be quashed and set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) directing Resolution Professional to handover the Corporate Debtor to the ex-management on account of stay of the CIRP is wholly unjustified and accordingly such direction is liable to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that as agreement entered into is for the development of infrastructure facility and not the works contract hence assessee is eligible to avail deduction available under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that question that whether Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest should be referred to a larger Bench.
Karnataka High Court held that scrutiny notice issued u/s 143(2) by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre instead of jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Central Charge is sustainable in law and hence valid.
CESTAT Kolkata in the matter of valuation of iron ore held that inordinate delay in testing the sample is virtually suicidal to the outcome of the test results. Hence, valuation set aside.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration received in terms of Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) cannot be termed as Royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA even if extensive services are rendered which includes access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an appellate authority can exercise the power u/s. 251(1)(a) to enhance the assessment only after giving a notice for enhancement. Accordingly, enhancement by CIT(A) without issuance of notice is untenable in law.
