The Tribunal initiated CIRP proceedings after the borrower acknowledged the loan and default, confirming the existence of a financial debt under Section 7 of the IBC.
Tribunal ruled that advertisement, promotional, and management service payments made by an importer are not a condition of sale and cannot be added to customs valuation under Rule 10(1)(e).
The Tribunal admitted an insolvency application after finding that the debtor failed to pay dues despite completion of consultancy services and no bona fide dispute existed.
Blocking Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A without recording written reasons to believe is illegal, as per Allahabad High Court, reinforcing procedural safeguards in GST.
Kerala High Court held that declaring income and paying tax under Income Tax Act does not preclude action under the Benami Transactions Act, as both operate independently.
FOB value was the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value could not be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”.
The Court found no grounds to interfere with the Madras High Court’s decision dated 08.08.2024 and dismissed all pending applications, affirming judicial consistency.
Since the transactions in seized records were only notional mock trading entries and not unexplained cash credits, only brokerage income at 1% of transaction value was taxable.
The NCLAT Delhi held that adverse observations made against an IRP in NCLT proceedings should not affect his reputation when no opportunity to respond was given.
Since the existence of financial debt and default was undisputed and all procedural requirements under Section 7 were satisfied, the petition of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Labhanshi Multitrade Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) deserved admission.
