CIRP against the Corporate Debtor commenced vide order dated 09.04.2024. On 17.04.2024, Resolution Professional issued public announcement calling upon creditors to submit their claims.
AO, based on the information, found that both suppliers were subject to proceedings and were found guilty of economic offenses punishable under the relevant CGST Act, 2017, and KGST Act, 2017.
The notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee, along with the notice reasons recorded for reopening assessment were also supplied to the assessee.
Held that the shareholding of the assessee (voting right) has continued to remain not less than 50% as prescribed in clause (b) of proviso to 47(xiv) of the Act, even after issuing of new shares by the above said company.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed u/s. 148A(d) is non-speaking since AO failed to provide adequate counter explanation against reasons furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 147 non-est and void ab initio.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act towards interest income earned from investment in other co-operative bank. Accordingly, deduction allowed and appeal by revenue dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 in absence of any fresh material, based on material already available during assessment proceedings, tantamount to mere change of opinion and the same is not permissible in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on presumptions and concept of human probability without bringing on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry is not sustainable.
Kerala High Court held that financial distress of the employer is not at all an excuse for denying or delaying payment of gratuity. Thus, held that no further time can be granted to employer for payment of gratuity.
Delhi High Court held that there was no occasion for respondent to terminate service of petitioner since petitioner failed to establish that respondent is an ‘industry’ and there existed employer employee relationship between them.
