NCLT Chandigarh held that successive written acknowledgments by the borrower extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The tribunal admitted the Section 7 IBC petition as it was filed within the extended limitation period.
The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding ₹2 lakh should first be examined under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
The Court refused to review its earlier ruling that retrospective GST cancellation was invalid due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice and absence of prior notice to the taxpayer.
The Gauhati High Court held that when a taxpayer clears outstanding tax, interest, and late fees and files pending returns, authorities must consider restoration of GST registration under Rule 22(4).
The High Court set aside the Settlement Commission’s order rejecting a settlement application. It held that while non-cooperation was noted, the finding regarding lack of full disclosure lacked adequate reasoning.
The ITAT held that when non-jurisdictional High Courts give conflicting decisions, a division bench ruling should be preferred over a single judge decision. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim that the assessment order was time-barred.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹19.27 lakh under Section 69A after finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The explanation regarding gold loans and family transactions remained unsubstantiated.
ITAT held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was valid because the Assessing Officer followed CBDT Instruction 1/2022 and the Supreme Court’s decision on reassessment procedures. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the notice was barred by limitation.
The Kerala High Court held that freezing a bank account suspected to contain proceeds of crime must follow the attachment procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS. The debit freeze imposed under Section 106 was therefore quashed.
The Court ruled that Section 106 of the BNSS permits seizure of property but not debit freezing of bank accounts. Attachment of proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107.
