NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator cannot create sub-lease over properties not owned by the corporate debtor without prior permission of concerned authority. Accordingly, action to sub-lease without specific permission is incorrect and illegal.
ITAT Surat held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) since the assessee was displaced from his office due to attachment of office on account of some purported fraud committed by him is sufficient cause.
NCLAT Delhi held that date of declaration of the loan account/ debt as NPA can be reckoned as the date of default to enable the Financial Creditor to initiate action under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit in bank not justified since it is proved that cash was deposited out of the sale of agricultural land.
As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
Calcutta High Court allowed the bail application on the fact that petitioner has been in prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence. Court also relied on the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception.
The IRP sent a report in which two more unsecured financial creditors, the appellants herein, were included in the CoC on the ground that they had given personal guarantee to the applicant bank for securing the loan advanced to the corporate debtor.
Karnataka High Court held that demand of Goods and Services Tax (GST) under reverse charge mechanism from service receiver will lead to double taxation since entire tax already paid by service provider. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Madras High Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution doesn’t permit Court to decide the dispute between two private parties. Accordingly, writ dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail civil remedy.
Held that the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
