NCLAT Delhi held that direction to resolution professional to release the amount to Gujarat State Tax Department treating it as secured creditor under Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is justifiable as NCLT is obliged to apply decision of Supreme Court.
NCLAT Delhi held that present appeal is not maintainable as shareholder is not a person aggrieved under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order admitting CIRP u/s. 7 sustained.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained cash credits cannot be sustained since assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it and proved identity of loan creditors, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of parties. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger invoking rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is impermissible. Accordingly, order is quashed.
Rajasthan High Court held that criminal prosecution wholly on allegation of concealment is liable to be quashed since the Tribunal has adjudicated that there was neither concealment during penalty proceedings hence there remains no factual or legal basis for the prosecution to survive.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking provisions of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] is illegal and arbitrary since reasons to believe was not provided which is mandatory requirement for invoking Rule 86A.
Bombay High Court held that grant of approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153A, based on approval u/s. 153D granted without application of mind, is vitiated.
ITAT Delhi held that DRP is a quasi-judicial authority and is required to issue directions on all the objections raised by assessee. Failure to adjudicate certain components results into violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of DRP.
CESTAT Allahabad held that demand made in respect of works contract services provide to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is not sustainable since the services are provided to Government Authority and the same are exempted in terms of Notification 25/2012-ST.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of claim in CIRP of corporate debtor justified since Appellants failed to establish the crucial aspect of transfer of monies to the bank account of Corporate Debtor for purchase of flats.
