NCLAT Delhi held that Prospective Resolution Applicant or unsuccessful Resolution Applicant doesn’t have vested right to challenge a resolution process or an approved resolution plan. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
CIT(A)’s order upheld; assessee acted as a middleman, and no evidence supported AO’s mechanical addition. Only Rs.15.42 lakh as brokerage recognized.
NCLAT Chennai grants extended period of 60 days to make full and final payment for execution of Scheme of Arrangement. Accordingly, order is quashed and extension of 60 days is allowed.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the loan could not be treated as unexplained when the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidence. The authorities failed to conduct further inquiry or rebut the lender’s confirmation. The ruling emphasizes that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on suspicion.
SEBI has issued an ex-parte interim order against Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy Pvt Ltd, directing disgorgement of ₹546.16 crore for alleged unregistered advisory activities. The order names Avadhut Sathe, Gouri Sathe, and ASTAPL, citing ₹601 crore collected from 3.37 lakh clients. Here is a complete analysis of SEBI’s findings, timelines, and implications.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash credit cannot be added under Section 68 when the assessee furnishes full documentation, setting aside the addition of ₹15 lakh and related interest disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the notice did not indicate whether scrutiny was limited or complete, contrary to CBDT directives. This omission made the notice invalid and rendered the assessment unsustainable. The decision reinforces the necessity of clarity and compliance in scrutiny notices.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that expenses cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) based on assumptions if TDS is duly deducted and documented, setting aside additions exceeding ₹5 crore.
ITAT Mumbai held that donations to registered trusts cannot be taxed under Section 69C solely based on third-party statements without supporting evidence.
