Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the ...

Tribunal Orders Respondents to Pay Rs. 5.5 Crore Plus 18% Interest for Contempt and Non-Compliance with Orders.

June 13, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law Tri

Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the Respondents had no right under the compromise memo not to comply with the undertaking to discharge its dues to ARCIL, or disregard the orders passed by this Tribunal. In any case, the Respondents are bound to comply with the directions/orders of this Tribunal. - The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Tribunal - The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are directed to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 5.5 Crore to the Petitioner together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order - Tri

View Source

← Previous Next →

Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the ...

Tribunal Orders Respondents to Pay Rs. 5.5 Crore Plus 18% Interest for Contempt and Non-Compliance with Orders.

June 13, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law Tri

You may also like:

Sub-section (1) in Section 5 amended to not levy integrated tax on Extra Neutral Alcohol used for manufacturing alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Section 6A...

Nexus between loans taken from SBH and PNB initially advanced to Nandan Corporation and subsequently transferred Rs. 5 crore from Nandan Corporation to Tripoli...

The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application filed u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking refund of an amount deposited as part of a...

The applicant is required to pay GST on the charges paid to Indian Railways for various services received, as the applicant is the recipient of these services from...

CESTAT allowed appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00...

Contempt application preferred by the appellant alleging non-compliance of order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court - entitlement to refund of the...

Penalty u/s 271B - no tax audit conducted u/s 44AB - bonafide belief - When Gross profit is more than Rs.4 crores, it means the Gross Receipts were definitely more than...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of levying interest u/s 234B in proceedings u/s 147/148. The AO had enhanced the interest from the date of the original...

The High Court addressed the rejection of a blanket unconditional stay on tax and interest demands by the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a conditional stay, requiring...

The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held...

Income from other sources - Deduction of interest expenditure - direction of the CIT – A in restricting the deduction to the extent of income earned of term deposit -...

The NFRA held that the Auditors were grossly negligent and failed to exercise due diligence in the audit of a public interest entity, amounting to professional...

Non-payment of interest on refund u/s 18(4) of the Customs Act 1962 upon finalization of provisional assessment was challenged. Upon completion of the specified import...

The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b)....

Quick Updates: