Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified.
NCLAT Chennai held that liquidator cannot resort to proceedings under section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the purposes of the challenging direction issued to the IBBI.
Gauhati High Court held that claim of inspector in central excise of committing illegality in allocation of zone after one year from date of final order is time barred as per section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
ITAT Kolkata held that interest expenditure incurred on loans taken for acquiring property is allowable as deduction under section 48. However, from Assessment Year 2024-2025, due to amendment in provisions, such expenditure will not be allowed as deduction.
ITAT Chennai held that in view of pending decision before Madras High Court which has a bearing on the assessment, the assessment is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to await the pending decision.
Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is sustained. Since, addition u/s 68 has been upheld, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums are to be added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act untenable without concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 towards unexplained income rightly deleted as no adverse incriminating material/ document found in the premises of the searched person. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Telangana High Court held that accumulated profits under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act are to be computed taking into account the depreciation as per the Income-tax Rules. Thus, matter decided in favour of the assessee.
NCLAT Delhi held that issue of closure of the factory to be raised against Industrial Court or Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not against adjudicating authority i.e. National Company Law Tribunal. Thus, appeal dismissed.
