The fiction created by Section 11 of the Acquisition Act, does not imply that the assessee bank would also become a company for the purpose of the Companies Act for which Clause (b) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 115JB is applicable.
NCLAT Delhi held that there is no provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which allows set of/adjustment/ counter claim against financial debt for calculating threshold limit prescribed under section 4 of the Code.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that denial of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act merely because date of registration was beyond the stipulated period as entire consideration paid within the stipulated period.
ITAT Kolkata held that when date of agreement and date of registration are not same, then, stamp duty value on the date of agreement should be considered. Accordingly, since difference is less than 10%, hence addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that bonafide delay on the part of the Chartered Accountant in filing Return could not be a ground to reject the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, two days delay condoned as delay appears to be wholly bonafide.
NCLAT Delhi held that interest cannot be termed as operational debt as defined under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence interest cannot be included in the claims filed under section 9 of the Code.
Madras High Court held that once the genuinity of the transaction is proved by the petitioner before this Court, there is no necessity for remanding the matter back to the respondents. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained investment set aside.
Madras High Court held that notice and order thereof issued for A.Y. 2021-22 instead of 2018-19 in form DRC-01 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, matter remanded back for passing fresh order on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the entire proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and completed by the PCIT within a period of only 12 days without pointing out reason for lack of enquiry unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back.
The Assessing Authority disallowed a sum of Rs.11,27,00,000/-, which the assessee claimed it as business loss. The Assessing Authority had also disallowed certain other claims of the assessee.
