The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)’s directions to verify fund flow, bank statements, and lenders’ creditworthiness before making additions. The Tribunal found the remand approach legally justified and free from infirmity.
CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input services. The Tribunal ruled that the exclusion under Rule 2(l) applies only to construction-related activities involving buildings or civil structures.
CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject transaction value. The Tribunal quashed the demand, confiscation, and penalties after finding no proof of additional consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that estimating income at 8% of turnover was excessive where the assessee’s accounts were tax-audited and past profit history reflected lower margins. The Tribunal restricted the addition by adopting a 4% profit rate based on the facts of the case.
The NCLAT held that unregistered profit-sharing agreements do not create leasehold or occupancy rights in immovable property. The tribunal upheld eviction of the occupant from the corporate debtor’s hotel premises during CIRP.
While approving the resolution plan, NCLT clarified that exemptions relating to taxes, duties, and statutory compliances must be obtained from the competent authorities separately. Approval of the plan does not itself waive statutory liabilities.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that transfer pricing adjustments may have been added twice while computing the assessee’s income. The issue requires fresh examination after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The First Appellate Authority noted that the CPIO exceeded the statutory RTI timeline by one day. However, since the requested closure letter had been furnished, no further action was considered necessary.
The IBBI held that prolonged failure to hold SCC meetings, delayed progress reporting, and repeated absence before the Adjudicating Authority amounted to serious professional misconduct. The order underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory duties under the insolvency framework.
