NCLAT Delhi held that reliefs prayed for in the Company Petition against ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ could only be adjudicated by a Court/Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which in the present case is the NCLT/NCLAT under Sections 241 & 242 of the Act.
NCLAT Chennai held that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction to initiate insolvency proceedings of Personal Guarantors even when no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Proceedings is pending against Corporate Debtor.
Delhi High Court held that a person who signed a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he had read them or not. Here, the plaintiff has signed the MoU in token of acceptance of the terms thereof and is bound by the terms thereof, including the Arbitration Agreement.
Supreme Court held that the court is powerless to modify award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award. Accordingly, High Court has no reason to interfere with the arbitrator’s finding on interest accrued and payable.
NCLAT Chennai held that dues under ‘Central Excise Act, 1944’ would have first charge only after the dues under the Provisions of the Code are recovered. Accordingly, application against approved Resolution Plan dismissed as Resolution Plan meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the Code.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 194H of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on sells of pre-paid SIM at discounted price to the distributors. Further, as no TDS deductible, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as the ownership of the land on which development rights were conferred remain vested with the landowners hence the assessee did not get the right over the income as per accrual accounting system as provided under the provisions of section 145 of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of lender duly proved.
ITAT Surat held that seized jewellery within the permissible limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No 1916 dated 11.05.1994 couldn’t be treated as undisclosed jewellery. Accordingly, addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act liable to be deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that reasons for reopening of the assessment recorded by an Authority who was not having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee is unsustainable in law and accordingly the entire reassessment proceeding is liable to be quashed.
