ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses Revenue’s appeal, quashing a Rs.ｹ116.01 crore bogus sales addition to Pel Industries Ltd. as the assessment reopening was invalid and time-barred.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses a trust’s appeal, sustaining a Rs.8.36 lakh tax addition. The trust was ineligible for Section 11 benefits as it lacked Section 12AA registration and served a specific community.
NCLT Chennai held that application u/s. 7 of IBC against Corporate Debtor [Ran India Steels Private Limited] for initiation of CIRP admitted as financial debt is proved by the Financial Creditor and the ‘default’ having been committed by the Corporate Debtor.
CESTAT Delhi held that Adjudicating Authority is bound by the findings in remand proceedings, it is not open for him to revisit the issue. Thus, Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the limited scope of its jurisdiction in terms of the remand order and thereby fell in error in reconsidering all the issues on merits.
NCLT Mumbai held that application u/s. 123 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Bankruptcy Process against Personal Guarantor admitted as all the requirements of section 123 complied. Accordingly, Kapil Wadhawan [personal guarantor of DHFL] is declared Bankrupt.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 7(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process [CIRP] against Corporate Guarantor admitted as default duly proved.
NCLT Chandigarh held that application u/s. 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the initiation of the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor [Hoshiar Nirvair Tractors Private Limited] stands approved as no resolution plan was received even after publication of Form G twice.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non prosecution. CIT(A) remains under statutory obligation to dismiss appeal on merits. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Held that the liability of the corporate guarantor is co-extensive with the principal borrower, and accordingly, both the principal borrower and corporate guarantor are equally liable for the default. Accordingly, CIRP application u/s. 7 of IBC allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
