NCLT Hyderabad held that equity investment is not a loan and doesn’t fall within the meaning of ‘operational debt’ under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of IBC for initiation of IBC dismissed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that benefit of concessional rate vide notification no. 62/2004-Cus dated 12.05.2004 is denied on import of rectangular shape gold bars as manufacturers or refiners serial numbers not found engraved on the gold bars.
Karnataka High Court held that date of surrender of bank guarantee to be considered as relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that post approval of resolution plan, there could be no occasion whatsoever for department to issue notices. Accordingly, GST notices issued alleging wrong claim of ITC quashed and set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that termination of concession agreement has no relation with default in repayment of dues of the Financial creditor. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC rightly admitted against Supreme Manor Wada Bhiwandi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] as debt and default established.
Madras High Court held that inquiry report under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018 [CBLR] submitted beyond the period of 90 days is against mandate provided under sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 17 hence inquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and barred by limitation.
Madras High Court held that time limit of six years is reasonable time for passing of order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act in respect of non-residents. Accordingly, order impugning assessment years beyond six years is set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held the disallowance on basis that the ESOP expenses is contingent in nature cannot be sustained. However, amount claimed as expenditure, the basis of allocation of ESOP cost by GSGI etc., needs to be factually examined. Hence, matter remanded.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 rightly imposed on courier agency for lack of due diligence since red sandalwood was mis-declared as copper wire in export consignment. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed.
Supreme Court held that demand notice stands invalid in the eye of law when amount mentioned and demanded in notice send under Proviso (b) to section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is different from actual cheque amount.
