NCLT Mumbai held that the Corporate Debtor has committed a default in repayment of debt which is due and payable to the Financial Creditor. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted for initiation of CIRP against Corporate Debtor.
Madras High Court held that detention of goods due to route mismatch justified as there was no necessity to travel 41 kms when actual destination point was just 9 kms. Accordingly, rout mismatch clearly shows malafide intention to deliver goods illegally.
ITAT Indore held that AO made addition towards unexplained deposited without being aware of possession of two PAN by single person-assessee. Accordingly, matter remanded to the file of AO with imposition of cost of Rs. 7,000/-.
Calcutta High Court held that merely because share transactions were done through stock exchanges it doesn’t make the transactions genuine. Accordingly, bogus capital loss claim rejected and appeal of revenue allowed.
Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Prabir Purkayastha seeking Anticipatory Bail in ECIR dated 02.09.2020 under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer in the matter of addition of Rs. 30 Crores u/s. 68 since additional evidence filed under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 963 substantiating genuineness of business advances.
Calcutta High Court held that addition towards share capital/ premium as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act justified since the assessee did not discharge the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
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, summary cannot override or replace requirement of issuing proper SCN.
Madras High Court directs appellate Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of an appeal and consider that the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy, as there are prima facie indications of a mistake in not filing Form 67 as required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962.
NCLAT Delhi held that it is not justified to start entire process from stage of Information Memorandum since CIRP period has already came to an end and Adjudicating Authority has remitted matter to CoC for fresh consideration of resolution plan.
