Chhattisgarh High Court held that petition u/s. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Chaitanya Baghel seeking quashing of illegal arrest in the matter of money laundering linked to Liquor Scam is dismissed as grounds raised are procedural lapses not amounting to illegality.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that no hypothetical income of the assessee could have been brought to tax. Accordingly, income not accrued due to cancellation of sale agreement. Thus, order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that the statue permits taxpayer to correct bonafide errors by self-verification of assessment and payment of liability until the notice is issued under section 73 of the CGST. Accordingly, bonafide error in assessment and intimation in DRC-03 is directed to be allowed.
Bombay High Court held that order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed after imposition of moratorium u/s. 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot have binding effect of the company. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
Patna High Court held that since owner of the crane was not an accused in NDPS case, thus auction of his crane without any notice and without providing opportunity of being heard is unlawful. Accordingly, criminal writ petition is allowed.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that Corporate Debtor [Shree Ram Cottex Industries Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted into liquidation in terms of provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in view of rejection of resolution plan u/s. 31(2) for non-compliance with statutory requirements.
CESTAT Delhi held that Cap Sub Assembly for Door Outside Handle 423205-11480 is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 87082900 as contented by the Department. Accordingly, benefit under notification no. 46/2011 Customs not admissible.
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant doesn’t qualify as a Financial Creditor since appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving any disbursement as defined under Section 5(8)(f) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
