The NCLT Mumbai held that participation and voting in the first creditors’ meeting did not amount to relinquishment of a secured creditor’s security interest. It ruled that the bank remained entitled to enforce its security under the SARFAESI Act.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reinitiated penalty proceedings after the Assessing Officer failed to pass a fresh order within the 12-week period fixed by the Court. It held that non-compliance with the earlier judicial directions warranted setting aside the show-cause notices.
The Gujarat High Court held that once the Resolution Plan was approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all tax liabilities not forming part of the plan stood extinguished. It therefore quashed the reassessment notice and the order under Section 148A(d).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) remained the most appropriate method as there was no change in the assessee’s functional profile and earlier Tribunal decisions had consistently accepted it. The transfer pricing adjustment based on the internal Cost Plus Method was deleted.
The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific reasons for treating bank credits as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits representing recorded business sales could not be treated as unexplained under Section 68 when the books of account and trading results had been accepted. It deleted the addition relating to demonetisation cash deposits.
The ITAT Delhi held that an adjustment against excess contributions already made to an approved gratuity fund could not be disallowed under Section 40A(7). It also held that contributions to an approved gratuity fund are allowable under Section 40A(7)(b), resulting in deletion of the disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
The High Court found that withdrawal of garnishee notices and compliance with the CBDT Office Memoranda entitled the assessee to stay of recovery. It held the subsequent refund adjustments to be legally unsustainable.
