The Court confirmed that statements recorded during a survey cannot form the basis for tax additions if the assessee is not allowed to challenge them.
Court noted that documented share purchases, demat holdings, and stock-exchange sales were not properly evaluated by the AO. The ITAT’s factual findings were upheld.
A company and its officer were penalized under Section 138 for failing to appoint an internal auditor for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24, with corrective measures and penalties mandated.
The Court held that a provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year under Section 83 and ordered release of the account with a requirement to maintain a ₹10 lakh minimum balance.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT’s order, ruling that no incriminating material was seized, and investor companies had sufficient net worth. Additions under Sections 68 and 153A were not justified.
A company and its directors were penalized under Section 42(9) for filing the return of allotment 23 days late, highlighting the importance of timely compliance in private placements.
A company and its director were penalized under the Companies Act for appointing a non-resident managing director without prior Central Government approval. Rectification through resignation and post-facto sanction was required.
The Court set aside the appellate order after finding no inquiry into when the March 2022 order was uploaded, directing the authority to verify the actual upload date. The ruling clarifies that limitation must be assessed based on proven upload timelines.
The High Court held that investigation material showed prima facie involvement in unlawful tender cost increases. The ruling emphasized that such allegations warrant a full trial, not discharge.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Income Tax Department, condoning delay but emphasizing that repeated petitions on settled questions waste judicial resources.
