Tribunal held that a provision for bad debts need not be routed through the Profit & Loss account in the first eligible year under Section 36(1)(viia). The disallowance was deleted as the audited statements reflected the provision as on 31.03.2007.
The Court held that both salary and farm income must be considered, increasing the deceased’s monthly income to ₹8,000. ignoring legitimate income sources leads to undervalued compensation.
The tribunal held that the resolution plan was invalid because several valuable properties were omitted from the Information Memorandum. The ruling emphasises that all assets must be valued and disclosed, and security interests cannot be extinguished without legal basis.
The Court held that strict documentary proof of salary is not mandatory and adopted a reasonable income figure. liberal standards apply when determining earnings for young accident victims.
Tribunal upheld CoC’s power under Section 27 to replace Resolution Professional, ruling that a pending challenge to CoC’s constitution cannot block appointment.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
The Court held that assessments under Section 73 without prior Rule 142(1)(A) notices are invalid. Section 61 scrutiny must be completed first, and unsatisfactory explanations require issuance of the notice. The assessments were quashed, and the matter remanded to the proper officer.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
The Court held that Section 44AF, as a special provision, overrides the requirements of Section 139(9). It ruled that treating the return as defective was unjustified and directed issuance of the refund.
The Tribunal observed that Form 67 was available before 143(1) processing, making the denial of FTC unjustified. It set aside the appellate order and directed the AO to grant FTC after verification.
