NCLT Kolkata held that the Corporate Debtor, Shomuk Consultancy Services Private Limited, is ordered to be liquidated in terms of Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code since the statutory period for the CIRP has been exhausted, and no resolution plan has been received.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by Reliance Capital Ltd. for liquidation of Corporate Debtor [Win Trendz Exim Private Limited] allowed as approved by majority of 78.8% of CoC.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Corporate Debtor [Shivom Investment and Consultancy Limited] as submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant [Prashantbhai Ghanshyambhai Ukani] stands approved as meets the requirement of section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
Madras High Court held that writ filed alleging wrong classification of goods cannot be entertained due to availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before CESTAT. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on the basis of interest paid on cash loans received by the assessee is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee are partly allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of shark fins without any evidence that there was an attempt to export the same is not justifiable. Accordingly, order confiscating goods set aside and appeal allowed.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that accrued interest in a loan sale is part of the purchase consideration, not interest. This means a borrower-lender relationship doesn’t exist, and TDS is not required.
Madras High Court held that date of receipt of copy of order is to be accepted in absence of any contrary evidence by the respondents/ department. Accordingly, dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation not justified. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi ruled a CIT(A) order invalid, stating it had no jurisdiction once a superior authority (PCIT) had already allowed a revision under Section 264.
