SC clarified that personal insolvency proceedings under Section 94 IBC do not stay criminal trials for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act.
Madras High Court held that when the moisture content is below 10%, the same is to be considered only to be a roasted areca nut thus writ petition is disposed of with direction to the department to release the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that Light Green Float Glass is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 7005 10 10 and not under 7005 21 10. Further, it is not permissible for department to contend re-classification since order of Commissioner (A) classifying under CTH 7005 10 10 already accepted by department.
NCLT Cuttack held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is admitted for initiation of Corporate Insolvency and Resolution Process against Corporate Debtor [Geosphere Industries Pvt. Ltd.] as operational debt of more than Rs. 1 crore stands established and default thereon is proved.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that order passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the said order was also not served. Thus, order is set aside and matter restored back.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer needs to lift attachment of the property based on orders passed by the highest fact finding authority has attained finality and there is no payment pending on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust, deleting an addition of ₹31.6 lakhs after finding the receipts to be voluntary donations, not compulsory capitation fees.
SC held that liquidation of a company does not protect its director or personal guarantor from prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Criminal liability remains independent of insolvency proceedings.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 were void as notices were not validly served and proper approval from PCCIT was not obtained.
