Delhi High Court held that acceptance of settlement and order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) based on full and true disclosure not to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution.
NCLAT Delhi held that as creation of security interest on the assets of Corporate Debtor not proved by any documents, Resolution Professional duly declared Appellant as unsecured Financial Creditor.
Supreme Court held that that the amounts covered by security deposits under the agreements constitute financial debt. Accordingly, section 5(7) of IBC categorizes the person as financial creditor if a financial debt is owned to it.
Gujarat High Court held that demand notice issued after date of order of NCLT approving the resolution plan is liable to be quashed as claims which are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished.
Kerala High Court held that Section 149 of the Customs Act is an additional remedy available to the person who seek amendment of the Bill of Entry. Thus, modification of the assessment order can be either under section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act i.e. Section 149.
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of application in Form No. 10AB for seeking approval u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act by treating it as time barred under gist that CBDT circular no. 22/2022 dated 01.11.2022 didn’t provide extension of time limit is unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that that cash sales that is already offered as income cannot be taxed in the grab of inflation sales to cover up demonetization currency. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act directed to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-registration of will doesn’t lead to any inference against its genuineness. Thus, jewellery inherited from mother in law based on non-registered will be capital assets and sell thereof results into long term capital gain.
Delhi High Court held that denial of input tax credit in respect of services where GST is payable on reverse charge basis, cannot by any stretch be held to be irrational and arbitrary. Thus, deny of input tax credit to service provider who is not liable to pay tax on output services is justified.
Delhi High Court held that a reopening or abatement would be triggered only upon the discovery of material which is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income”. Thus, AO seeking to reassess completed assessment without incriminating material is untenable in law.
