NCLT Mumbai held that application for liquidation of Corporate Debtor [Multicity Hospitals LLP] in terms of section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] is allowed as decided by members of CoC.
CESTAT Kolkata held that silk fabric with 85% or more silk excluding Noil Silk is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 5007 2090 and cannot be classified as Noil Silk Fabric under Customs Tariff Heading 5007 1000. Accordingly, re-classification of goods not sustainable.
NCLT Mumbai held that Corporate Debtor Unitech Transformers Pvt. Ltd. is ordered to be liquidated in terms of provision of section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as approved by members of CoC with 83.32% voting share.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in terms of Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules, SEZ developer not utilizing the goods or services on which exemptions, drawbacks, cess and concession have been availed needs to refund the concessions so availed.
These Public Interest Litigations are filed by the petitioners substantially seeking the relief of including the petrol and diesel under the GST regime so as to achieve a harmonized national market as contemplated under Article 279 (A) of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the interest on nonrecoverable loans has not been recorded by the assessee and accordingly no deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act was claimed. Thus, addition made thereon is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factually incorrect facts and reasons without application of mind and without verification of facts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Orissa High Court held that initiation of proceedings on same subject matter under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by different tax administrations is not justifiable. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings initiated by Central Proper Officer not sustained.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the SCN issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1) of both the Central and State GST Acts. Accordingly, order set aside and writ petition is allowed.
