You’re running a mid-sized infrastructure company in India, and you’ve been watching your borrowing costs creep higher while domestic banks tighten their purse strings. Your expansion plans are stalling, not because of lack of demand, but because of expensive capital.
Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT’s order replacing the Resolution Professional suffered from procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice. Replacement under Section 27 of the I&B Code must be done only through a CoC resolution with 66% voting however, since the RP himself failed to place the agenda for replacement, he could not claim advantage of that lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the NCLT was directed to follow due procedure under Section 27, ensuring fair opportunity and compliance with law.
High Court upheld the validity of the suo motu power under Section 56 and the classification finding, but held that the clarificatory order holding that “thermic fluid heaters” were not specifically covered under Schedule III and were taxable at 12.5% as a residuary (RNR) item under SRO 82/2006 could operate only prospectively from 07.04.2016 onwards, and not for AY 2009–10.
Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.
The Tribunal found the tax addition in the Dulu Mahato case unsustainable. The AO failed to refer the property renovation valuation to the DVO and ignored evidence of joint investment by all co-owners.
The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.
Supreme Court rules that GST proceedings start with a Show Cause Notice, not a summons. Clarifies guidelines for Central and State GST authorities to avoid parallel investigations.
The ITAT Pune set aside the CIT(A)’s order that had restricted a bogus purchase addition of ₹2.53 crore to a 12.5% profit element. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure the application of the binding ruling from the jurisdictional Bombay High Court regarding 100% disallowance in hawala purchase cases.
Summary of SEBI Takeover Code, 2011 on mandatory open offers, creeping acquisition, offer pricing, and escrow requirements for acquiring shares or control of a listed company.
