Where a composite scheme of arrangement satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the requisite stakeholder consents are available, the Tribunal may dispense with meetings of the concerned classes, direct compliance with statutory notice requirements and permit the scheme to proceed to the second motion stage for final sanction.
Where an ECIR based on an earlier predicate offence had already resulted in search and seizure proceedings and no fresh incriminating material subsequently emerged, the Enforcement Directorate could not justify arrest under Section 19 PMLA by merely incorporating another FIR through an addendum and relying on substantially the same allegations.
An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court granted bail to the accused, observing that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that continued detention would be unjustified.
Non-maintenance of minimum balance by customers did not generate taxable consideration and, therefore, no service tax/GST, interest or penalty could be levied. Revenue was also bound by its earlier acceptance of an identical adjudication order in favour of another bank.
Since the material on record disclosed grave suspicion regarding acquisition and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and attracted the presumption under section 24 of the PMLA, the Special Court was justified in refusing discharge. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition of a former Forest Range Officer was dismissed.
Tribunal directed convening of meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the transferor company, dispensed with other meetings as prayed, and issued consequential directions regarding notices, advertisements, quorum, reporting and filing of the second motion petition for final approval of the scheme.
A belated filing of Form 3CLA was a curable procedural defect and could not deprive an assessee of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) where the substantive conditions for allowance of the deduction stand fulfilled.
Expenditure of ₹4.49 crore incurred on maintenance dredging for removal of natural siltation and restoration of the existing operational depth of the jetty constituted revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1). Accordingly, the disallowance made by AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted.
The newly constructed storage tanks used for storing hazardous raw materials and finished products constituted an integral part of plant and machinery and were eligible for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). Accordingly, the disallowance of ₹91.12 lakh was deleted.
Adjudicating Authority failed to properly examine whether the transactions underlying the Section 7 application were genuine financial debts or merely sham arrangements involving round-tripping and financial layering among related entities.
