Adjudicating Authority failed to properly examine whether the transactions underlying the Section 7 application were genuine financial debts or merely sham arrangements involving round-tripping and financial layering among related entities.
Addition of capital gain was deleted as impugned land being agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and having retained its agricultural character, was outside the ambit of “capital asset” under section 2(14)(iii) and therefore no capital gains could have been charged on transfer thereof.
Inter/Intra Circle Remittance Balance represented only internal transfer and reconciliation entries relating to assets and stock in transit between different Circles of the Assessee company. Since no expenditure or deduction had been claimed and the balances did not represent any real income or loss, the addition of Rs.1527.40 crores made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable in law and were directed to be deleted across all relevant assessment years as Revenue had failed to establish inflation of purchase prices; accrual of PSPL’s commission income to assessees; any flow back of funds to the Assessees; or that PSPL was a sham or fictitious entity.
FIR registered against officials and the liquidator of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (PLL), which alleged non‑payment of subcontractor dues and misuse of Goods and Services Tax (GST) input credits in connection with the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) pipeline project was quashed as mere breach of contractual obligations, delayed payments, GST disputes, or financial reconciliation issues did not constitute the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the inception of the transaction.
Assessment orders passed pursuant to express liberty granted by the High Court during pendency of settlement-related litigation remain valid and enforceable. Mere keeping of demand in abeyance did not invalidate already communicated assessment orders, nor did it require passing of fresh assessment orders after rejection or abatement of settlement proceedings.
Resolution Professional (RP) was fully justified in seeking possession through the insolvency process itself, the NCLAT affirmed the NCLT’s eviction order and held that separate eviction suits were not a prerequisite for reclaiming assets owned by a corporate debtor during CIRP.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
Where an EPCG licence holder becomes incapable of fulfilling export obligations due to unavoidable circumstances such as SARFAESI auction of imported assets, levy of interest and penalty cannot be sustained, particularly when customs duty has already been recovered through encashment of bank guarantees. Tribunal upheld only the customs duty demand while setting aside confiscation, interest and penalty.
The Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning the issuance of GST notices and proceedings related to a highway project under the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) model. It upheld the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, dismissed the writ petition, and granted assessee liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, ensuring that the matter could be examined on its merits by the appellate authorities.
