High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presumptions. High Court ruled that breach of Section 269SS may attract penalty but does not make a cash loan unenforceable under NI Act.
NCLAT held that a bidder’s exclusion due to an unresolved platform issue warranted reconsideration, especially when a higher offer was available.
Tribunal ruled that contempt punishment requires clear charges, show-cause notice, and opportunity of hearing before penal action. NCLAT set aside contempt directions after finding that no individual officers were identified before ordering imprisonment.
The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Court ruled that separate notices and adjudication are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.
ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effect order was invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that interest expenditure cannot be disallowed without establishing a nexus between borrowed funds and non-business use. The absence of supporting evidence led to deletion of the addition.
The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not require any mandatory pre-deposit. The Court upheld the direction to pursue the statutory remedy and protected the appellant on limitation.
ITAT Chennai held that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied through TDS processing for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A was introduced only prospectively.
The ITAT held that, following the Supreme Court’s ruling denying LFC exemption for foreign travel, a bank could be treated as an assessee in default where no court order restrained TDS deduction.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s view that a later judicial pronouncement cannot constitute a “mistake apparent from the record” under Section 254(2).
