ITAT Hyderabad held that exemption under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act towards income derived from sale of foundation seeds as agricultural income allowed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
NCLT Cuttack held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited [Corporate Debtor] is liable to be admitted since operational debt and default is proved.
Gujarat High Court ruled that the time taken to process a GST refund application until a deficiency memo is issued must be excluded from the two-year limitation period under Section 54.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Cab-Eez Infra Tech Limited [Corporate Debtor] admitted as operational debt and default thereon established.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a VAT Tribunal order, restoring an appeal and remanding the matter for fresh consideration because the Tribunal failed to address all specific grounds raised by the petitioner.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Blu-Smart Mobility Tech Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) as operational debt and default in payment established.
NCLAT Delhi set aside an NCLT order and remanded the case, holding that the Adjudicating Authority must provide reasons for denying or refusing any reliefs sought by the appellant.
CESTAT ruled that transaction value supported by final invoice and BRC must be accepted for export duty finalization, overriding CRCL report on moisture content. set aside a Customs order, confirming that the actual transaction value realized for iron ore exports must be used for final duty assessment.
NCLAT dismissed PNB’s insolvency plea against Concast Morena as time-barred, ruling that a pending recovery case in DRT doesn’t qualify for Section 14 exclusion. the rejection of a bank’s Section 7 petition, stating the application was time-barred and the RDDB Act recovery suit didn’t reset the deadline.
ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling the AO failed to levy the correct charge (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars), making the penalty unsustainable. finding the AO charged the assessee with concealment of income when the facts indicated furnishing inaccurate particulars.
