Delhi High Court held that merely because investigator [Enforcement Directorate] doesn t want to arrest the accused, it cannot be said that the accused is entitled to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application in cyber fraud dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that deeming fiction of section 50C cannot be extended while working out the written down value [WDV] for the purpose of claiming depreciation on the block of asset. In other words, legal fiction for substantiating the sale consideration by the Stamp Duty Value created under either section 50 or section 43CA cannot be extended to section 32 for claiming depreciation on the block of the asset. Thus, order set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that repeated application under section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for taking refuge of moratorium with malafide intention to defeat recovery proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that satisfaction note recorded before initiation of the proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act is not a valid satisfaction. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act is quashed since based on invalid satisfaction.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
Delhi High Court held that there cannot be indefinite pretrial detention when the existence of proceeds of crime itself is seriously in doubt. Accordingly, continued detention is not warranted hence bail application allowed and regular bail granted.
NCLAT Delhi held that each and every commercial transaction which has resulted in loss may not be labelled as fraudulent or to have been done to deceive creditors. Accordingly, since ingredients of section 66(2) of IBC is lacking, the transaction cannot be labelled as fraudulent.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer doesn t have authority to declare mortgage as void-ab-initio. Tax Recovery Officer can only enforce attachments under the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
