ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money found during the course of search is liable to be deleted since assessee has discharged his onus to prove that the cash found is completely verifiable from the audited books of accounts.
Kerala High Court held that order passed without granting reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were relied on in the orders is not tenable. Accordingly, order is quashed with direction to reconsider the matter.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by Micro Capital Pvt. Ltd. for Pifiniti Movies Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan for M/s. Thwink Big Content Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by M/s. Micro Capitals Private Limited meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 1265 days in filing of an appeal not condoned since negligence on part of the lawyer is not sufficient cause. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed by not condoning the delay.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond time limit of six year is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal allowed and notice quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justifiable when AO has taken most plausible view. Accordingly, appeal is allowed to that extent.
CESTAT Mumbai held that determining value of furniture on the basis of weight is not justifiable since furniture is never ever sold by weight. Accordingly, revision in assessable value set aside and appeal is allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act makes the property tax dues as first charge on the property hence refusal to grant mutation on account of outstanding property tax fully justified.
NCLAT Delhi held that bank doesn’t have any jurisdiction to retain the securities [i.e. fixed deposit amount] since Corporate Debtor was not part of any facility against which any amount is due. Thus, retention on ground that there were dues against another Group Company not justified.
