Patna High Court held that reassessment proceedings under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is justifiable since proceedings initiated within a three year period as per section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Discrepancies in financials prompted the Appellant to seek clarifications from Personal Guarantors – Respondents No. 2 and 3, and the late Mr. Bajrang Dass Aggarwal, who provided explanations on 25.02.2020.
NCLT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against corporate guarantor not maintainable as financial creditor not able to establish invocation of corporate guarantee.
NCLT Mumbai held that the private sale has to be conducted by the liquidator in a manner so as to maximize the realizations from the sale of assets. Since strategy to maximize realisation from sale of assets absent.
NCLAT Delhi held that penalty under section 27(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 imposable since Google has abused its dominant position and has violated Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating LTCG as bogus merely on the basis of assumption and conjecture is not sustainable in law since purchase and sale of shares were made via banking channel.
ITAT Pune held that non-inclusion of disallowance u/s. 43B while filing income tax return is bona fide and inadvertent error. Accordingly, imposition of penalty under section 270A for bona fide mistake without intent to evade payment of tax is not justifiable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable as assessment made by AO after proper verification of evidences. Further, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue.
NCLAT Delhi held that adjudicating authority, not solely relying on the resolution professional’s report, needs to conduct an independent assessment under section 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Bombay High Court held that demand in respect of the duty drawbacks post approval of resolution plan is liable to be waived off in terms of section 31A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Accordingly, writ stand allowed.
