NCLAT Protects Access to Liquidation Property and Imposes ₹10 Lakh Costs
In a 2:1 decision, NCLAT upheld relief protecting access to a corporate debtor’s property because the obstruction directly affected its liquidation value and sale.
Practical checklists and clear explanations for individuals, professionals and businesses.
In a 2:1 decision, NCLAT upheld relief protecting access to a corporate debtor’s property because the obstruction directly affected its liquidation value and sale.
The Bombay High Court directed every ITAT bench to follow Rule 34 and deliver judgments within 60 days, with a maximum 90-day period for exceptional cases.
In a Section 129(3) GST penalty-delay case, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an order passed one day after the statutory seven-day period.
The Supreme Court rejected the Revenue view that entertainment and hospitality changed a foreign cruise operation into a non-shipping activity.
GSTAT Thane ruled that GST authorities could not use Section 74 to revisit CENVAT and VAT credits that stood undisputed under the earlier tax laws.
The Supreme Court distinguished protected provident fund contributions from uncrystallised claims for EPFO interest and damages while upholding an approved resolution plan.
Form 26A can support relief from specified TDS default recovery when the deductee filed the return, included the income and paid tax, but interest may still remain.
NCLT Kochi recognised the Income Tax Department as a creditor under Section 252(3) and permitted restoration of a struck-off company so pending tax proceedings could be completed.
Ahmedabad ITAT held that Section 80P(4) does not deny a cooperative society deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) merely because its interest came from a cooperative bank.
The Calcutta High Court held that a serious challenge to the authority of the GST adjudicating officer required proper consideration and restored the matter for a fresh decision.
NCLT Mumbai held that a minority shareholder seeking waiver under Section 244 must show membership, oppression-related allegations and exceptional circumstances, but need not prove the complete case on merits.
In Pramod Kumar Jain v. DCIT, Bengaluru ITAT held that Flipkart vested but unexercised ESOP rights were capital assets and their repurchase was taxable as capital gains, not salary.