The Supreme Court held that a chit subscriber incurs a present debt payable in installments, allowing recovery of future subscriptions upon default.
The issue was whether advance money from a failed land deal could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that without clear forfeiture, section 56(2)(ix) does not apply. Key takeaway: forfeiture is mandatory to tax advances.
The issue was whether a ₹3.05 crore disallowance under section 14A could stand without nexus to exempt income. The ITAT held that only a reasonable amount with clear linkage can be disallowed, capping it at ₹10 lakh.
The Bill permits full foreign ownership and replaces rigid investment rules with regulator-led norms, making India’s insurance sector more competitive and globally aligned.
The issue was whether section 153C could extend beyond six years without discovery of an undisclosed asset of ₹50 lakh or more. The ITAT held that in absence of such asset-based satisfaction, extended jurisdiction is invalid.
The ITAT held that cash redeposited after a clearly documented bank withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained. The ruling emphasizes that verifiable fund movement defeats section 69A additions.
The High Court held that even in ex parte proceedings, the appellate authority must consider appeal grounds. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
The 2025 amendments scrap key lock-ins and vesting conditions, allowing earlier and more flexible exits. The ruling links withdrawals to corpus size, giving subscribers greater control over timing and form of payouts.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the prescribed time limit was valid. The Tribunal held that notices for the relevant year issued after the cut-off date were barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal quashed the duty demand after finding that Customs rejected the declared value without complying with Rule 12. The ruling clarifies that proper reasons, disclosure, and opportunity to rebut are mandatory before enhancing value.
