NCLT Ahmedabad held that composition scheme of arrangement aimed at consolidating Adani Group’s renewable energy and green hydrogen with Adani New Industries Ltd. and Adani Enterprises Ltd. is sanctioned.
ITAT Mumbai held that development fees collected from passengers was earmarked for capital expenditure towards modernisation and development of airport infrastructure and therefore the same could not be treated as revenue income of the assessee.
NCLT Indore held that pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to initiation of proceedings under the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC admitted as existence of financial debt and occurrence of default thereon by corporate debtor duly established by financial creditor.
NCLT Mumbai held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against corporate debtor admitted as financial debt and default thereon duly established.
ITAT Mumbai held that no TDS is liable to be deducted when payment is made for serving food in a restaurant in the normal course of running of the restaurant/café. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of duty on manufacture of pan-masala/gutka cannot be sustained since there was no evidence which proved that manufacturing activity took place before installation of pouch packing machine.
ITAT Mumbai held that right to interest on refund is statutory right hence interest on delayed refunds arising from Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas [DTVSV] Act, 2020 is admissible. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible for claiming Initial Public Offer i.e. [IPO] expenses proportionate to the shareholding in terms of clause (i) of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi held that approval from the PCCIT or PDGIT is mandatory, as provided u/s 35(2AB)(iv) of the Act. Since such mandatory approval of R&D facility from the PCCIT or PDGIT was not obtained by the assessee therefore, weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be allowed.
Delhi High Court held that property acquired from proceeds of crime before Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be attached u/s. 5(1) since possession continued after Prevention of Money Laundering Act came into force.
