Kerala High Court held that proceedings punishable under section 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 not justified since illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 crore against Intelligence Officer not proved in absence of sufficient evidence.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Ethyl Benzene is isomer of xylene and hence correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 29024400. Accordingly, order demand differential duty set aside and appeal of the assessee allowed.
Aggrieved against the directions of CIT(A) to the AO for assessment of gross profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases and enhancement on account of disallowance of cash payment u/s.40A(3) of the Act, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
NCLT Kolkata held that One Time Settlement proposal given by Corporate Debtor to Financial Creditor is a clear acknowledgment of debt and default. Hence, application filed by Financial Creditor u/s. 7 of IBC for initiating CIRP against S R Timber Products Private Limited admitted.
Madras High Court held that the goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments.
Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since proceedings initiated within a three year period as per section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Discrepancies in financials prompted the Appellant to seek clarifications from Personal Guarantors – Respondents No. 2 and 3, and the late Mr. Bajrang Dass Aggarwal, who provided explanations on 25.02.2020.
NCLT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against corporate guarantor not maintainable as financial creditor not able to establish invocation of corporate guarantee.
NCLT Mumbai held that the private sale has to be conducted by the liquidator in a manner so as to maximize the realizations from the sale of assets. Since strategy to maximize realisation from sale of assets absent.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty under section 27(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 imposable since Google has abused its dominant position and has violated Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
