The view that NCLT had no jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 Application filed by the Financial Creditor and the Application ought to have been filed before the DRT was not valid.
Assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of credits in his books and consequently, CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions after relying on various judgments made by AO.
It was held that CoC in the legislative scheme was empowered to take decision to liquidate the Corporate Debtor, any time after its constitution and before confirmation of the resolution plan.
When an assessee deposes on oath giving explanation of the reasons and circumstances for investment, the same could not be brushed aside on the basis of general principles of the modus operandi of bogus LTCG claims.
The matter was heard by the Adjudicating Authority on which date the impugned order was passed recalling the order and restoring the Company Petition and the two IAs.
CCI penalized Meta in November 2024 for alleged unfair business activities related to WhatsApp’s amended privacy policy from 2021. Users had to agree to data-sharing conditions with Meta entities in order to receive the update.
CIT (A) was right in its decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2.92 crore made by AO under Section 69B for alleged undervaluation of closing stock as the books of accounts was not rejected, therefore, the observation of AO that the same were not reliable.
Section 129 could not, merely by virtue of its non-obstante clause, be construed to have an overriding effect on Section 126 which interdicts tax officers from imposing any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements.
Tribunal ruled that the deduction was valid under Section 43B, as the payments were made in the relevant assessment year after the disputes were settled through the amnesty schemes.
The Settlement Commission held that the rectification of errors under Section 154 was confined to arithmetical or clerical errors and assessee’s application was beyond the scope of the Section 154.