Income Tax : Dive into the Principle of Mutuality, exploring its meaning, tax implications, and impact on cooperative societies. Discover case ...
Fema / RBI : It is felt that enormous powers are conferred on Banks or Public Financial Institutions under SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the stage of...
Finance : I strongly believe that implementing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 making a good balance between the object and the int...
Goods and Services Tax : Levy of sales tax on a higher percentage on ‘superior kerosene oil' (SKO) (also called white kerosene oil) and also levy of resa...
Income Tax : For the sake of convenience, the attached tables summarises the valuation rules for all perquisites prescribed in the new rule 3 e...
Income Tax : A dozen private nursing homes and hospitals today lost their approval granted under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act on the bas...
Income Tax : The case examined whether compensation paid to exit prior agreements was a sham arrangement. The Tribunal ruled it was a valid bus...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘defi...
Company Law : Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching t...
Income Tax : In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relie...
Corporate Law : The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It ...
Income Tax : Circular No. 2/2010-Income Tax The Finance Act, 2005 introduced a levy namely Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on the value of certain fr...
Income Tax : Notification No. 94/2009 - Income Tax For the purpose of computing the income chargeable under the head Salaries, the value of pe...
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment made against a duplicate “Company PAN” for a non-existent entity was void ab initio. This led to the deletion of a ₹3.18 crore cash addition, as the bank account and transactions belonged to a proprietary concern already assessed.
ITAT Delhi held that the ₹33.12 crore received by a co-founder to settle disputes and relinquish the right to sue for promised equity is a non-taxable capital receipt. The court ruled the payment wasn’t salary, business income, or capital gains, as the ‘right to sue’ isn’t a transferable capital asset.
Tribunal rules that default occurred before the Section 10A suspension period; admits insolvency petition filed by Omkara ARC against debtor despite Covid-related objections.
Tribunal admits CIRP against Bafna Motors Pvt. Ltd., ruling that post-10A period defaults exceeding the statutory threshold merit insolvency proceedings, with final claim verification to be done by IRP.
NCLT Chandigarh held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Falcon Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] admitted as operational debt and default established.
NCLT Indore held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional [CIRP] against OSSL Agri Logistics Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted as no pre-existing dispute exists.
NCLT Kolkata held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted for default of Rs. 2888 Crore.
CESTAT Chennai held that DGCEI appointed as officers of Customs and hence authorize to demand differential duty in terms of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the material period and there was no infirmity in the SCN.
Provident fund dues were protected by statute and same were excluded from the liquidation estate of a company under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thus, could not be denied to claimants on grounds of delay as it would defeat the object of protecting employees’ social security.
Delhi High Court held that Section 20 stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed. Thus, retention of seized property without following procedure stipulated under section 20 of PMLA is not justifiable.
