The ITAT upheld disallowance of ₹11.71 lakh towards loan processing fees after finding that the loans were obtained for broader business purposes and not for acquiring the property generating rental income. The ruling clarified the limited scope of deductions available under Section 24(b).
ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation on the date of allotment should be considered where property consideration was fixed earlier and payments were made through banking channels before registration.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A without granting a prior hearing violated principles of natural justice and caused serious civil consequences.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction under Section 153C is not a mechanical exercise and must clearly establish the relevance of seized material to the assessee’s income.
The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about earlier rulings denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that smaller benches cannot dilute binding larger bench precedents. The Court reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration and delayed trials justify bail under Article 21.
The Kolkata ITAT held that a commercial loan repaid within the same financial year along with interest and TDS compliance could not be treated as a bogus accommodation entry under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and banking transactions established the genuineness of the loan.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for non-filing of annual return for FY 2018-19. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 92 compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
The Registrar of Companies held that continued non-filing of annual return violated Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, leading to penalties on both the company and its managing director.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file annual returns under Sections 92(4) and 92(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights strict consequences for continued annual compliance defaults.
