The Honble Apex Court further held that the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority is circumscribed by Section 31 of the Code and is limited to scrutiny of the Resolution Plan as approved by the requisite percent of voting share of financial creditors.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by M/s. Amphitrite Subsea Pvt. Ltd. for Dunnimaa Engineers and Divers Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (Corporate Debtor) meeting requirements of section 30(2) of IBC and Regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39(4) of the CIRP Regulations stands approved.
DRAT Chennai held that rule 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 empowers forfeiture of earnest money deposit when balance sale consideration is not paid within stipulated time. Accordingly, order confirmed and appeal is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that enhancement made by CIT(A) in absence of show cause notice issued under section 251 of the Income Tax Act is wholly unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and enhancement is quashed.
NCLT Cuttack held that application u/s. 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for liquidation of Grid Steel and Alloys Limited deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, liquidator of the Corporate Debtor also appointed.
ITAT Delhi rules DigiCert Inc’s receipts from Indian resellers for digital security certificates aren’t royalty or FTS. It’s a non-taxable sale of a copyrighted article.
CESTAT Bangalore held that goods imported and cleared to industrial consumers are not leviable to MRP based assessment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside.
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.
NCLT Kochi approved the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Shubhlaxmi Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. for RCF Building Products Limited since the same is in accordance with section 30 and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty paid to private entities/ third parties towards breach of contract is the usual course of business and doesn’t involve payment of penalty for infraction of any law hence disallowance made under Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act is unwarranted.
