ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
Commission found that comparisons between hospital diagnostic charges and standalone labs were inadequate because hospitals operate continuously with different infrastructure requirements.
Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not reclassify imported industrial composite solvent as kerosene when all mandatory BIS specifications were not tested. It observed that missing parameters rendered the laboratory reports inconclusive and legally unreliable.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplantation and continuous dialysis treatment.
NCLAT held that foreign oil and gas assets owned through Videocon subsidiaries could not be included in the CIRP of Videocon Industries Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that subsidiaries and parent companies are distinct legal entities under insolvency law.
High Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings could not culminate in dismissal without granting the employee an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Tribunal noted that the CIRP period, including all extensions, had reached 741 days and expired on 20 November 2025. Since no plan was approved by the CoC, liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC was ordered.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation after holding that one income tax return reflected earnings only up to the accident date and could not be treated as annual income.
The NCLT Mumbai held that liquidation became mandatory under Section 33(2) of the IBC after the Committee of Creditors rejected all resolution plans with a 95.63% voting share. The Tribunal ruled that, in the absence of an approved plan, liquidation proceedings had to be initiated.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid through MEIS duty credit scrips for past imports constituted valid discharge of customs duty liability. The Tribunal held that any fresh cash recovery by the Revenue would amount to impermissible double recovery.
