NCLAT Delhi held that additional time granted to vacate the property due to the fact of monsoon season and directed to vacate the premises in question till 15.09.2025. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
CESTAT Chennai held that Adjudicating authority has taken lenient view by levying penalty on Customs Broker for allowing use of license to unauthorised person and not revoking Customs Broker License. Accordingly, order of adjudicating authority upheld.
CESTAT Chennai held that Clear Float Glass is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 7005 1090. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Liquidator vide letter dated 20.11.2021 did not accept the claim principally on the ground of violation of Moratorium. On instructions of the Liquidator, the Corporate Debtor has challenged the order dated 11.10.2021 passed u/s. 7A of the EPF Act before CGIT Ahmedabad in appeal bearing EPF Appeal (CGIT) No.36 of 2021.
NCLAT Delhi held that matter regarding admission of application filed under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is required to be remanded back for fresh consideration existence of pre-existing dispute based on additional affidavit submitted.
CESTAT Delhi held that the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT cannot be held ab initio null and void by the DRI or any other Customs Officers. Accordingly, confirmation of the demand under section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order is without any authority of law.
CESTAT Delhi held rejection of refund that too on the bais of raising the issue of classification is against the principles of judicial protocol. The order is accordingly, set aside and appeal is allowed.
NCLT Kolkata held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Shivam India Limited [Corporate Debtor] is admitted. Accordingly, writ petition allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as AO has applied his mind and revision u/s. 263 cannot be possible for mere change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that adhoc disallowance of expenses merely on the basis of suspicion without adequate evidence and cogent reason is not tenable in law. Accordingly, adhoc disallowance under repair and maintenance and sundry expense set aside.
