Supreme Court held that washing and dry cleaning is covered within the meaning of ‘manufacturing process’ defined under section 2(k) of the Factory Act, 1948 and hence Factory Act will be applicable. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order of High Court set aside.
In the year 1998, respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Later, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation.
Delhi High Court held that the allegations against the petitioners are based on telephonic conversations, vague statements, and uncorroborated allegations which are insufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy or wrongful conduct.
Calcutta High Court held that seizure of jewellery is valid since legitimacy of jewellery not substantiated; discrepancies are found in documentation and weight and there was reasonable belief of potential wrongdoing.
NCLAT Delhi held that financial creditor entitled to file an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code even after breach of settlement agreement since nature of debt doesn’t change. Thus, order admitting section 7 application sustained.
As already held by us, Section 3 (12) of the Tariff Act, as amended, is applicable only after 16th August,2024 and is not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, in the present case, no confiscation could have been imposed.
Delhi High Court held that suspension of resolution professional for two years from taking any assignment as IRP is reduced since conclusions were based on erroneous figures. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits in assessee’s bank account was less than the amount mentioned in the reopening notice and thus reasons recorded by the AO were not found to be valid and, therefore, the reassessment framed was quashed. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is void-ab-initio since income escaped assessment doesn’t exceed Rs. 50 lakhs or more. Accordingly, assessment order passed by AO is quashed.
Madras High Court dismissed the writ appeals and held that rejection of rebate claim by taking stand that cenvat credit has lapsed in view of rule 11(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR 2004] is not tenable.
