Income Tax : The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Secu...
Company Law : Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching t...
Company Law : Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debto...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee ...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that termination of contract not triggered by the insolvency of Corporate Debtor and therefore not barred by mora...
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income earned by a securitisation trust created under the SARFAESI Act was taxable in the hands of Security Receipt holders because the trust qualified as a revocable trust under Sections 61 to 63 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the NCLAT since claim of violation of principles of natural justice not established. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor forming part of the liquidation estate and recover outstanding dues.
NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee for the Insolvency proceeding. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that termination of contract not triggered by the insolvency of Corporate Debtor and therefore not barred by moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC]. Accordingly, appeal held as devoid of merit.
ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the threshold criteria is applicable at the time of filing Section 7 application under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and not subsequently. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and order is set aside and remanded back.
The Supreme Court held that compensatory allowances form part of “ordinary wages” for overtime calculation. Executive circulars cannot override the clear mandate of Section 59(2).
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any perversity in the order passed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor has ownership right including the assets that may or may not be in possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, section 18(1) of IBC enables resolution profession to repossess shares held in any subsidiaries of Corporate Debtor.
