The Court refused bail in a money laundering case after holding that the accused failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The court refused bail after noting allegations that employee provident funds were invested in a private financial institution in violation of statutory provisions and government guidelines.
he tribunal refused to accept the appellant’s submissions regarding manpower supply service to five hotels, relying on reasons recorded in related appeals decided on the same date.
The tribunal noted that the invoice was issued before the alleged execution date of the agreement, raising questions about the authenticity of the claim and leading to dismissal of the insolvency petition.
Official Liquidator Vs Kirloskar Institute (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal filed by the Official Liquidator of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (the company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.826/2011 in Company Petition No.166/2001. The Company Court had dismissed the application filed by […]
ITAT Delhi deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C after finding that the assessee received and repaid loans through banking channels with supporting confirmations and evidence.
CESTAT Mumbai held that accumulated credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess, and KKC cannot be transitioned or refunded because these levies were not subsumed under the GST regime.
FTI Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs MGF Developments Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, considered an appeal challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which had rejected a Section 9 application filed by the appellant seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution […]
The High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal despite delay after noting that the assessment order was served through deemed service on the common portal. The appeal must be filed with a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
CESTAT Bangalore held that revocation of a Customs Broker license is a harsh penalty that requires clear proof of involvement in fraud. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal set aside the license revocation but retained a penalty.
