Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) barred filing of applications for the commencement of the CIRP in respect of a corporate debtor for a default occurring on or after 25 March 2020, even if such application was filed before the date on which the amendment came into force i.e. 5 June 2020.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs Bhagat Singh (Supreme Court) In the case of a Casual Trader, the time limit for assessment is one year from the date of making the report, and if no report is made, within two years from the date of the transaction. The date of transaction in this case is 26.12.2009. The […]
Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on assessee was not disproportionate to the gravity of charges and therefore, no detailed reasons were required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel (Supreme Court) This Court held that a person having only security interest over the assets of corporate debtor, even if falling within the description of ‘secured creditor’ by virtue of collateral security extended by the corporate debtor, would not be covered by the financial creditors as per […]
SC on finding that the Special Leave Petition had been filed with delay of 1288 days without any cogent or plausible ground; had imposed costs on the authorities for wastage of judicial time and adopting an approach that they could walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute did not apply to them.
Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court held that If it is not possible to provide housing to the members of the tribunal, the UOI was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as HRA to the Chairman & Vice-Chairman and Rs. 1.25 lakhs […]
Since freezing of bank account due to initiation of proceedings under PMLA has been done without due compliance of law, it was necessary to direct to defreeze the respective accounts and clear the cheques issued by assessee, drawn in favour of the Competent Authority towards the ITDS, PF, ESI, Professional Tax, Gratuity and LIC employees’ deductions, subject to availability of the funds in the account concerned.
Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
Judgment dated 1st February, 2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2842 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No. 3063 of 2020]
SLP on penalty for borrowing above Rs. 20000 dismissed by Supreme Court in the case of Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax where unaccounted money of the financer routed by the director through accounts of Assessee. Introduction Supreme Court in Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 266 (SC) […]
