Calcutta High Court held that reversal of CENVAT Credit made was voluntary and doesn’t tantamount to pre-deposit within the meaning of the pre amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
NCLT Mumbai held that mere issuance of debit notes or raising of reconciliation issues at a later stage does not establish a “pre-existing dispute” within the meaning of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted as debt and default proved.
The Tribunal set aside the earlier order because it had relied on the now-recalled Ganpati Dealcom judgment while excluding pre-2016 funding from scrutiny. The matter has been sent back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the Benami allegations are reconsidered on merits.
Tribunal reduces FEMA penalty from ₹30 lakh to ₹10 lakh, confirming that unauthorised netting-off of ₹1.72 crore foreign commission violated statutory repatriation rules.
The Tribunal ruled that even without direct fund transfer, deep financial and management integration justified tagging the deposits as value of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained as the company formed part of the same economic group.
The Court upheld provisional attachment of Rs. 1.35 crore, finding the Appellant supplied cheaper PDW while claiming reimbursement at Rail Neer rates. The loss to the government and breach of mandatory supply obligations justified the action.
The tribunal confirmed penalties against a company and responsible directors for not realizing export proceeds of Rs.36 crores, emphasizing that commercial disputes cannot override FEMA obligations.
Tribunal upheld hawala and import undervaluation violations but significantly cut penalties for Dr. Manoharan and NTPL, fully exonerating two female directors. Key takeaway: Liability depends on active involvement, not mere association.
Delhi ITAT rules that reduction in percentage shareholding due to fresh share issuance is not a transfer under Income Tax law, providing relief to minority shareholders.
DRAT Chennai held that person aggrieved by an order of the recovery officer can prefer an appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, DRAT disposes of this Appeal by sending the appeal to DRT.
