NCLAT Delhi held that Form-B under CIRP Regulations, 2016 contemplates specifically permits set-off mutual credit, mutual debts, or mutual dealings between the Corporate Debtor and Creditor. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of refund claim, filed in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Customs, merely for the reason that Chartered Account Certificate is not as per prescribed format is not sustainable since format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested format and not a mandatory format.
Supreme Court held that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act is not general exemption. Such deduction is specific incentive attached strictly to the profits arising from a defined activity namely, the provision of long-term finance.
Allahabad High Court held that writ petition under Article 226 is not be maintainable if there is an alternative remedy under different jurisdiction of the same High Court. Accordingly, writ by developers challenging concurrent orders of Consumer Commissions dismissed.
NCLAT Chennai held that recall application under rule 11 of the NCLT Rules cannot be utilised as a camouflage to seek review of an order which has been passed on merits. Thus, company appeal lacks merits and hence dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that where controversy is anchored in company’s affairs and issue is one which NCLT/NCLAT is empowered to determine the matter in question, section 430 of Companies Act bars parallel civil suits and compels recourse to NCLAT/NCLAT.
Calcutta High Court held that GST Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs [CBIC] are binding on all the departmental officers but at the same time circular should not be treated as shield to ward off legal scrutiny and shelve legal action in cases involving undisclosed transaction, and/or dubious invoices and bills.
Madras High Court held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years is sustainable in law since assessee has failed to set out truly and fully all the material facts.
CESTAT Delhi held that since DGFT [Directorate General of Foreign Trade] has issued EODC [Export obligation Discharge Certificate] under EPCG [Export Promotion Capital Goods] hence customs authority cannot initiate proceeding demanding duty/ imposing penalty.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessment under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands quashed due to lack of jurisdiction since there was no transfer of the case of the assessee from Delhi to Jaipur.
