ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegations of mala fide conduct were unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that statutory investigation based on a Tax Evasion Petition could not be invalidated on speculative claims.
The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DRAT Chairperson was unavailable to hear the petitioners’ restoration applications. The Court granted limited interim protection until 20 May 2026.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that goodwill arising from a High Court-approved amalgamation qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
NCLAT held that the Corporate Debtor’s email offering payment subject to acceptance of a consequence sheet amounted to acknowledgment of operational debt. The Tribunal found that the dispute raised regarding quality and delays was not a genuine pre-existing dispute under Section 9 of the IBC.
The Chennai CESTAT held that imported electric scooter components could not be classified as complete CKD vehicles under Rule 2(a) because battery packs were never imported with the consignments.
ITAT Delhi held that the amendment excluding goodwill from depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) applies prospectively from 01.04.2021. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill for earlier assessment years following judicial precedents.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that recovery from a retired employee’s dues was unlawful in the absence of fraud, connivance, or misrepresentation. Court, however, permitted authorities to revise pension calculations excluding a pending DPC placement.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) cannot be collected on compounding fees recovered from illegal miners. The Court ruled that the provision applies only to lawful lease holders, licence holders, or contractual mining rights holders.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease holders, licence holders, or persons granted mining rights. Compounding fees collected from illegal miners were held outside its scope.
