Delhi High Court held that timelines under Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 for filing avoidance application are directory and not mandatory in nature.
Delhi HC held that the settlement consideration as received was liable to be recognized as capital gains and the same couldn’t possibly or justifiably be placed in the category of ‘profit in lieu of salary’.
Delhi High Court held that passing of order by the revenue under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of fresh ground which was never taken up with the assessee in the notice is untenable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit duly sustained.
ITAT Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) untenable as payment of advance tax is not applicable in case of reassessment proceedings.
Telangana High Court held that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether or not the Taxpayer is NRI/Indian Citizen. Thus, issuance of notice to NRI u/s. 148 without following mandatory faceless procedure is set aside.
ITAT Indore held that rate of interest on secured loan from banks cannot be compared with the rate of interest on unsecured loan. Accordingly, disallowance of interest u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act deleted.
Bombay High Court held that half-hearted approach on the part of AO to make additions on the issue of bogus purchase would not be conducive. Bogus purchase addition also cannot be on the basis of superficial inquiry.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice under section 148A of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer as required by the provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
NCLT Amravati held that application filed by SBI (creditor) u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of insolvency procedure dismissed as demand notice not served to Personal Guarantor on correct address.
