Delhi High Court held that internal disputes among company directors do not justify condonation of delay in filing ITR, upholding statutory compliance requirements.
The issue was whether payment of substantial loan EMIs can be treated as proof of income. The Court ruled that EMIs, without corroborative evidence, cannot determine income, leading to a downward revision of compensation.
The Court held that a vehicle registered in Puducherry but used in Kerala is liable for state motor vehicle tax, dismissing claims of permanent use outside Kerala.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fails where the notice alleged inaccurate particulars but the levy was based on concealment.
SEBI has operationalised Regulation 11B by prescribing half-yearly disclosure timelines and formats for SDIs. The framework becomes effective from the end of March 2026.
The Court held that inordinate delay of 8–9 years in adjudicating show cause notices violates principles of fairness and cannot be allowed to prejudice the assessee.
The High Court affirmed the assessment by applying its earlier decision while directing payment of differential tax to enable statutory compliance.
The ITAT set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing or examination of the assessee’s case.
The case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
The High Court rejected a long-pending challenge, holding that DRI officers are competent to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
