A resolution applicant could not unilaterally alter its financial proposal through a last minute addendum after completion of the challenge process and commencement of voting under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Special Judge for Commercial Disputes that had rejected the plaintiffs’ application to file additional documents.
Bluetooth Wireless Earphones because of its Bluetooth/Wireless connectivity did not transform an earphone into a “data transmission machine” for classification purpose.
The entire demand of excise duty, interest, and penalties for alleging that assessee was merely a proxy entity created by Noble Industries to fraudulently extend the exemption period beyond its permissible tenure was set aside as exemption notification and CBEC Circulars expressly permitted manufacture of new products, relocation of eligible units within notified areas, and transfer of ownership without affecting exemption eligibility.
Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider despite the Associated Enterprise (AE) assuming the entire contractual and operational risks relating to defence support services rendered to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
Works contracts for government buildings and educational institutions remain a highly litigated area therefore, merely relying upon Form 26AS data and illegal invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not justified.
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
PCIT had erroneously mixed up the scope of renewal proceedings with cancellation proceedings under Section 12AB(4). Further, Settlement Commission itself had accepted the charitable nature and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and PCIT (Central) was found to lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of renewal/cancellation of registration.
Reimbursement of interim payments from insured banks in priority to other liabilities was a valid exercise of legislative competence. The argument that the DICGC, being an insurer, was limited to the rights of subrogation and could not rank higher than the insured depositors was rejected.
