ITAT Chennai upheld that immovable property transfers within family through registered settlement deeds are exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The AO’s view that such transfers were non-bona-fide was rejected.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
ROC Mumbai penalizes Sweet Elephant Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and its director for non-filing of financial statements for FY 2020-21 under Section 137(3).
NCLT Mumbai held that non-payment of part of debt when it becomes due and payable amounts to default. Thus, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] duly admitted since there exists financial debt, exceeding threshold limit, and the same is in default.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor [Vibrant Content Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted since debt and default stand established.
The Supreme Court stayed an AP High Court judgment that set aside GST assessment orders and notices lacking the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
Delhi High Court quashes stamp duty demand, ruling that GST and water charges cannot be included in lease rent for stamp duty on residential property leases.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is admitted since Financial Creditor discharged its burden of proof by demonstrating the existence of a financial debt and default in payment of the financial debt by the Corporate Debtor [Devashray Papers (India) LLP].
IBBI seeks comments on draft templates for Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) to disclose beneficial ownership and Section 32A eligibility, ensuring transparency in CIRP.
Additions of unsecured loans were sustained where creditworthiness was not proved, and relief upheld only for creditors who responded to notices under section 133(6) or furnished adequate documentation. Assessee’s case was reopened under section 148, where AO noticed unsecured loans aggregating to ₹14.94 crore from 164 creditors. On verification.
