NCLT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Haridwar Highway Project Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted since financial debt and default thereon established.
Gujarat High Court permits furnishing of pending GST returns, in the matter of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of return for continuous period of six months, since substantial amount of outstanding tax with interest and late fees already deposited.
Delhi High Court held that curbing right to appear in examination due to non-fulfilling mandatory physical attendance norms is contrary to spirit of NEP, 2020 and also UGC Regulations. Accordingly, Court directs to re-consider the same.
NCLT Delhi held that insolvency of real-estate project is to be held project-specific. Accordingly, order set aside and matter revived before Adjudicating Authority to consider section 7 petition afresh.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no circular trading of cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exported. Further, also held that revenue has failed to prove misdeclaration. Accordingly, appeals of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that benefit under section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for inadvertent filing of Form 10-IB in place of Form 10-IC since the same is technical lapse. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is sustained and appeal of revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act merely because of inadvertent error of claiming exemption u/s. 10(46) instead of 10(23C)(iv) is not justifiable. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iv) granted.
Orissa High Court held that Goods and Services Tax deposit on account of inadvertent error got reflected in Tax Deduction at Source account is rectifiable since denying the rectification would tantamount to double taxation.
