The Authority examined whether imported electrical racks should be treated as static converters or distribution cabinets. It ruled that their principal function is electricity distribution, classifying them under CTH 8537 10 90. The key takeaway is that ancillary UPS functions do not alter primary classification.
NCLAT Delhi held that amount advance to Corporate Debtor with view to share profit in real estate project doesn’t qualify as financial debt u/s. 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Thus, application u/s. 7 rightly rejected.
The appeals were rejected without examining additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized that appellate remedies cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities and restored the cases.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 are legally unsustainable. Since jurisdiction itself failed under TOLA principles, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The case examined allegations of market access denial and abuse of dominance in digital advertising and search services. The Commission closed the matter, holding that vague pleadings and lack of specific evidence did not establish a prima facie violation.
The Commission held that allegations over AI-based alteration of a film did not establish anti-competitive conduct. In the absence of evidence linking the conduct to Sections 3 or 4, the case was closed under Section 26(2).
The issue was whether SEZ deduction could be denied for alleged late filing of Form 56F. The Tribunal held that filing within the CBDT-extended deadline was valid and CPC erred in disallowance. The ruling confirms that statutory extensions must be honoured in return processing.
The issue was whether payments received by private firms were genuine business income or tainted funds. The Tribunal held that advance payments and manipulated tendering showed diversion of NRHM money, justifying attachment.
The Supreme Court reinstated a judicial officer removed solely for granting bail without citing a statute in four cases. The Court emphasized that judicial errors alone cannot justify disciplinary action and awarded full back wages.
The case examined whether properties mortgaged with banks could be released from attachment. The Tribunal ruled that repayment of loans using illicit funds justified attachment to preserve assets for confiscation.
