The Court ruled that claimants could initiate execution proceedings and continue receiving interest if the agreed compensation was not disbursed within the stipulated period under the mediation agreement.
The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey statements or AO findings. The Tribunal ruled that the AO and DRP exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning deductions already certified in Form 3CL.
Karnataka High Court directed that compensation paid under a mediated land acquisition settlement must be released without deduction of TDS. The ruling relied on an earlier High Court decision concerning compulsory acquisition compensation.
Supreme Court considered whether sales of natural gas transported from Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh constituted inter-State sales or intra-State transactions liable to VAT. The dispute arose after Uttar Pradesh treated the sale as completed within the State because gas became ascertainable only at buyers’ factories.
The Court ruled that liability to pay additional tax arises only after the reciprocating State grants countersignature to the permit. Tax demands raised before countersignature were held to be without jurisdiction.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated solely on the basis of a revenue audit objection without fresh tangible material were invalid. The Tribunal ruled that such reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
The Gauhati High Court permitted impleadment of CBIC and customs officials in a pending writ petition after finding them necessary and proper parties. The Court held their presence was required for effective adjudication of the issues involved.
The NCLT allowed dissolution of the corporate debtor after finding that all remaining disputed assets and avoidance transaction claims had been assigned under Regulation 37A. The Tribunal held that no further realizable assets remained for liquidation.
The Delhi High Court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens and held that even if a small part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the matter should be pursued before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
The Calcutta High Court upheld rejection of exemption under Section 12AB after finding that proposed microfinance activities involved commercial features such as charging interest. The Court held that such activities may not qualify as charitable purposes.
