NCLT Delhi held that alleged debt falls below the minimum threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore as laid down under section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and hence section 9 application for initiation of CIRP dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that invocation of extended period of limitation without establishing wilful mis-statement and suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of tax is not justifiable. Accordingly, entire order passed by adjudicating authority is set aside.
Pursuant to the search operation, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants as required u/s. 127 of the Act, proposing to centralise the income tax files relating to the appellants to the Central Circle in Kolkata.
NCLAT Chennai held that delayed filing of scheme of compromise u/s. 230 of the Companies Act cannot be condoned since there was no procedural flaw in conducting the auction till the stage it was finalized by the issuance of the sale certificate.
ITAT Delhi held that denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c) without any material brought on record to substantiate that salary paid to members were excessive.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that County of Origin certificate verified by the relevant authority is sufficient proof of origin criteria and hence denial of exemption benefit under Notification No. 99/2011-Cus dated 09.11.2011 not justifiable.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts. Accordingly, order along with notices are liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Delhi upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges in assessable value since the same was paid as a condition of sale and not paid in nature of interest. Accordingly, differential duty demand confirmed.
In the present case, the revenue has merely re-assessed the value on the basis of the statement of Shri Jhunjhunwala, which is not the prescribed requirement for reassessment of the value of the imported goods.
Patna High Court held that GST is leviable on construction service rendered in lieu of the development rights under the Development Agreement. Accordingly, the present writ application is not entertained.
