The ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹6.25 crore addition after finding that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels and supported by documentary evidence. It held that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders.
The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were completed without the petitioner’s participation. The matter was restored to the stage of the Section 148A(b) notice for a fresh response.
The Karnataka High Court held that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is mandatory and cannot be waived without statutory authority. It set aside the Single Judge’s directions permitting waiver of interest, penalty, and limitation.
The Calcutta High Court permitted the petitioner to be represented before the ED by an authorised representative after considering his age and medical condition. The Court directed that personal appearance could be required later with at least 15 days’ notice.
NCLT Chandigarh held that failure to hand over possession of plots or refund the amounts received from allottees constituted default under the IBC. It admitted the developer into CIRP after finding financial debt and default.
The NCLT approved the merger after finding that the Scheme complied with Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act and satisfied all statutory requirements. It also accepted undertakings addressing observations of the regulatory authorities.
The ITAT upheld deletion of the Section 69A addition after finding that the bank credits were satisfactorily explained as insurance premium collections and related transactions. It held that the Revenue failed to produce evidence contradicting the assessee’s explanation.
Tribunal held that final assessment order was time-barred because it was passed after mandatory period prescribed under Section 144C(13). Assessment was set aside, making remaining transfer pricing issues academic.
The Gauhati High Court held that a service tax demand based only on Form 26AS, without examining the nature of services or taxability, is unsustainable. The Court quashed the tax demand, interest, and penalties.
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing order issued without authentication or a digital signature is invalid in law. Consequently, it quashed the ₹85 crore transfer pricing adjustment and allowed the assessee’s appeals.
