Gujarat High Court held that impugned order cancelling the registration traveling beyond the scope of show cause notice is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that as between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened i.e. there is no change in law, no new material came on record and no new information has been received. Hence reopening proceedings was just change of opinion accordingly the same is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that conducting or participating in exhibitions within India or overseas for promotion of Gem and Jewellery Industry couldn’t be regarded as commercial activity for the purpose of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that if such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration, which is beneficial to the company received from such shareholder then in such advance or loan cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court held that coercive recovery during the course of search without following instruction no. 01/2022-23 dated 25th May 2022 issued by the Board is bad in law and liable to be refunded back with interest.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance for deduction under section 80IB and 80IC of the Income Tax Act corresponding to the allocation of R&D expenditure is deleted.
NCLAT Delhi held that regulation 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the operational credit (i.e. the person filing CIRP application) is liable to bear the expense/ fees of Interim Resolution Professional.
Gujarat High Court held that the debts due to Bank – a secured creditor shall be paid in priority over other debts-taxes payable to the State Government.
Madras High Court held that as the petitioner proved that amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS) as per form SVLDRS-3 was paid on the due date, however, the amount was credit on the next day i.e. one pay after the due date. The application submitted by the petitioner under SVLDRS should be processed.
Supreme Court of India held that conditions under Section 45 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is applicable to Anticipatory Bail application under section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
