The court examined whether a liquidation recovery application was time-barred. It held that statutory limitation under company law cannot be extended by judicial interpretation.
This explains why genuine shareholders face rejection in IEPF claims due to procedural lapses. The key takeaway is that compliance errors, not ineligibility, cause most failures.
The Tribunal examined whether execution of a development agreement alone triggers capital gains. It held that without consideration or statutory transfer of possession, no capital gains arise.
The issue was whether share capital could be added in a completed assessment without seized evidence. The Tribunal held that in an unabated year, additions are barred absent incriminating material.
The issue was whether penalty could be imposed for disallowance arising from a disclosed change in lease rent accounting. The Tribunal held that a bona fide, disclosed and debatable claim cannot attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Registration was cancelled after the valuer ceased to be a member of a Registered Valuers Organisation. Continuous RVO membership is a statutory condition to remain eligible as a registered valuer.
The Tribunal held that absence of evidence beyond one month bars estimation for the full year. Only the amount directly supported by survey material can be taxed.
The issue was whether the income-tax e-filing utility could prevent an assessee from making a lawful set-off claim. The High Court held that procedural software cannot override statutory rights and directed that such claims must be allowed.
The Court examined rejection of a liquidation claim for non-filing of originals. It held that the claimant should be given time to submit documents before final consideration.
ITAT Bangalore held that claiming of amortised upfront fees i.e. 1/5th of the upfront fees paid is not allowable since the entire amount is already claimed as deduction. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue/department is allowed.
