The ITAT Pune substantially reduced a penalty under Rs. 271(1)(b), ruling that issuing successive notices for the same set of information constitutes only a single, continuing default, not multiple independent offenses. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the initial non-compliance, deleting the balance Rs. 30,000.
Delhi High Court held that penalty duly imposed on employee of Custom House Agent [CHA] for failure to ensure clean credentials of the importer. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and order passed by CESTAT upheld.
NCLT Delhi held that application under section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of CIRP against M/s. Universal Journeys India Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] is admitted since existence of operational debt and default duly established.
NCLT Mumbai held that corporate debtor [Neptune Ventures and Developers Private Limited] shall be liquidated considering that CIRP period has expired and at present there is no resolution plan for consideration of the CoC.
NCLT Delhi held that application filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by State Bank of India for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution [CIRP] against Giga Pipe Systems Pvt. Ltd. admitted since financial debt and default established.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that statutory demand notice duly signed by Operational Creditor and served upon Corporate Debtor through advocate is valid in eye of law. Accordingly, Corporate Debtor [Vimla Fuels and Metals Limited] is admitted to CIRP u/s. 9(5) of IBC.
NCLT Chennai held that discretionary power on NCLT u/s. 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to impel financial creditor to consider settlement proposed by Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, CIRP against Aban Offshore Limited admitted.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of CVD paid on account of EDI system glitch needs to be examined in terms of the Act and relevant judgements passed in this regard. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
