ITAT Jaipur held that withdrawing approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act not justified in absence of any corroborative evidence of personal benefit of trustees and misuse of funds. Accordingly, appeal allowed and registration u/s. 10(23C)(vi) restored.
By substituting outdated terms across regulations and schedules, SEBI has clarified the nomenclature for registrars. The amendment focuses on uniform drafting rather than introducing new obligations.
The regulations mandate compulsory SEBI registration, higher governance standards, and a ₹50 lakh net worth threshold, strengthening oversight of registrars and transfer agents.
Bombay High Court held that registration of vehicle in the name of innocent purchaser cannot be cancelled solely on the basis that initial registration was obtained by making false representation on the basis of forged documents.
ITAT Chennai held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) with only one day to respond violates the statutory minimum of seven clear days. All consequential proceedings, including the 148 notice and reassessment, were quashed as non-est, while substantive additions were left open as academic.
NCLAT Delhi held that acknowledgment of liability by Corporate Debtor in its balance sheets constitutes valid acknowledgement for both borrower and guarantor. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal highlighted that non-receipt of assessment notice and lack of knowledge about tax procedures justified the 175-day delay. The appeal was restored to the AO, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present his case.
The Department is flagging possible non-disclosure of foreign assets for AY 2025-26 using global data. The key takeaway is that timely revision can prevent penalties and future scrutiny.
ITAT Amritsar ruled that accepting demonetised currency beyond the permitted date does not ipso facto create unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee’s cash sales were already included in gross turnover, so no further addition was justified.
Orissa High Court held that filing of writ petition challenging adjudication order under section 73 of the GST Act after inordinate delay of around one year with adequate reasoning for inordinate delay cannot be entertained. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
