Kerala High Court held that exemption from building tax u/s. 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 granted as building is used for providing free accommodation to aged and disabled person rendering their services to the charitable/ religious institutions.
Gujarat High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards bogus Long Term Capital Gains [LTCG] from sale of penny stock cannot be sustained since genuineness of the stock proved with evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
NCLT Delhi held that the default occurred after Section 10A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC], can very well be made a basis for an application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016. Accordingly, application for CIRP meeting requirement of the provisions of Sec. 7(3) & (5) of IBC is admitted.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment show cause notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after 18.06.2022 i.e. after surviving time’ would be invalid and accordingly, notice is quashed and set aside.
ITAT Hyderabad held that alleged discrepancy i.e, the suppression of the purchases/sales/closing stock based on distorted figures by AO resulting to an exorbitant addition is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated to review the earlier stand adopted by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 148A(d) on the same ground which is already considered by AO cannot be sustained.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of wages and salaries after the issuance of the layoff notice rightly rejected since the appellant workmen due to issuance of the layoff notice has not worked after issuance of this layoff notice. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi Held that a written agreement is not a condition precedent to prove the existence of a financial debt. Accordingly, CIRP application u/s. 7 of IBC duly admitted as debt and default proved.
ITAT Chandigarh held that additional evidences filed by the assessee deserves to be admitted inspite of casual and callous approach of assessee since the ultimate object of adjudication is to do substantial justice. However, cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed.
ITAT Amritsar held that the statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used for making addition unless and an opportunity to cross examine the witness is allowed. Accordingly, addition towards bogus purchases duly restricted to 1.2%.
