NCLT Chennai directs initiation of liquidation proceedings under section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of the Corporate Debtor due to failure of implementing the resolution plan. Thus, the present application is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion based on information received from another authority without independent enquiry cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that application under section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking waiver by the non-members cannot be allowed. Accordingly, order quashed and appeal stands allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that photography flashlights which produces a flash for a very short duration are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9006 99 00 and not under 9405 40 10. Accordingly, Principal Commissioner cannot discard order of Commissioner (A) and Joint Commissioner to reclassify the goods.
ITAT Mumbai held that the interconnect usage charges and roaming charges paid to Foreign Telecom Operators [FTOs] are not in the nature of royalty and hence not taxable in India. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Tribunal held that unexplained credit u/s 68 cannot be added when assessee has not yet commenced business. Loans received via account payee cheques from relatives of partners were genuine, referencing Alankar Promoters LLP vs ITO (Delhi HC).
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by M/s. Priyam Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] for M/s. Steadfast Shipping Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] meeting requirements of Section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations stands approved.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that common show cause notice and/or common order for different tax periods is impermissible. Accordingly, common order for assessment periods 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 is liable to be set aside and matter remanded back to respondent.
Madras High Court directs petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount and quashed impugned order since petitioner failed to furnish reply to GST SCN. Accordingly, court also directs to furnish reply within stipulated time period.
