Madras High Court extends time for filing GST appeal with required pre-deposit in Trans Car India vs. Additional Commissioner case. Detailed analysis and implications.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore case of J K Tyre vs Commissioner regarding the validity of excise duty refund appropriation. Detailed analysis of the order and its implications.
NCLAT Delhi held that RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) being an aggrieved person under section 61 of I&B Code 2016 has a locus to file an Appeal against order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Kabir Oldtex’s appeal. Penalty deletion on importer due to DGFT’s delay in EODC issuance. Detailed analysis and implications.
Delhi High Court held that section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 governs the tariff rates of electricity based which is determined through transparent process and hence no interference is required.
Explore Delhi High Court’s ruling in CIT vs Ricardo U.K. Limited. No profit attribution if commission paid to Ricardo India is adjusted against PE profit. Detailed analysis and implications.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s order in L&T vs. C.C.-Kandla regarding taxability of processed goods leftover after completing export obligations.
CESTAT Kolkata held that question of unjust enrichment in terms of section 27(2) of the Customs Act doesn’t not arise as imported goods are used as raw material for manufacture of final product i.e. imported goods are not sold to someone else.
NCLAT Delhi held that financial assistance given by the Appellant in a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) by way of an Inter-Corporate Deposit (ICD) does not fall within the canvas of financial debt as defined u/s. 5(8) of the IBC. Hence, CIRP application u/s 7 not entertained.
Delhi High Court held that as the medical facilities available at jail dispensary not adequate for medical treatment of the applicant, the applicant is allowed to get required physiotherapy treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
