ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
Madras High Court held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 not admissible without a valid ASEAN-India Free Trade Area [AIFTA] certificate. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed.
NCLT Jaipur held that conduct of the present Resolution Professional in CIRP proceeding of the Corporate Debtor [M/s U. N. Automobile Private Limited] seems to be non-transparent and in clear violation of the core objectives and principles of the Code.
The Honble Apex Court further held that the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 of the Code and is limited to scrutiny of the Resolution Plan as approved by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by M/s. Amphitrite Subsea Pvt. Ltd. for Dunnimaa Engineers and Divers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (Corporate Debtor) meeting requirements of section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations stands approved.
DRAT Chennai held that rule 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 empowers forfeiture of earnest money deposit when balance sale consideration is not paid within stipulated time. Accordingly, order confirmed and appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that enhancement made by CIT(A) in absence of show cause notice issued under section 251 of the Income Tax Act is wholly unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and enhancement is quashed.
NCLT Cuttack held that application u/s. 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for liquidation of Grid Steel and Alloys Limited deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, liquidator of the Corporate Debtor also appointed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that goods imported and cleared to industrial consumers are not leviable to MRP based assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that DGCEI appointed as officers of Customs and hence authorize to demand differential duty in terms of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the material period and there was no infirmity in the SCN.
