NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 30(6) of IBC by Resolution Professional not admitted inspite of approval by the sole unsecured financial creditor since it is not in compliance with section 30(2) of the Code, insofar as the dues of the state tax department under GVAT are not considered.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand made by the EPFO on the basis of an inspection report made after initiation of moratorium is not enforceable as Section 14(1) of the IBC prohibits the initiation or continuation of assessment during the moratorium period.
Madras High Court held that MEIS would clearly qualify as an instrument u/s. 28AAA of the Customs Act bestowing financial or fiscal benefits, however, only Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] is empowered to cancel or suspend the same.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reasoning given by CIT(A) for deletion of addition made u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act by Assessing Officer towards cash payment is contrary to material on record and cannot be accepted.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidence demonstrating that no tax advantage accrued to assessee owing to continuous losses needs verification. Accordingly, matter of imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) remanded back.
Supreme Court held that High Court has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the levy of export duty on goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area [DTA] to the Special Economic Zone [SEZ] is not justified.
NCLT Kolkata held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Aditya Birla Finance Limited [Financial Creditors] against Priya Food Products Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted as default in payment of financial debt established.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 22nd November, 2024 by which the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled retrospectively with effect from 29th December, 2017.
Patna High Court held that seizure memo without recording mandatory ‘reason to believe’ as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, order of confiscation is liable to be quashed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that 5th Proviso to Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 imposing export duty on supplies from Domestic Tariff Area [DTA] to Special Economic Zone [SEZ] is ultra vires. Accordingly, the proviso is struck down and petition is allowed.
