The Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning specific reasons in the statutory form is legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that non-speaking orders violate principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.
Tribunal ruled that income tax demands not included in the approved resolution plan were irrevocably extinguished. The decision followed the terms of the NCLT-approved insolvency resolution plan restored by the Supreme Court.
The NCLAT ruled that withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC cannot be invoked once liquidation proceedings have commenced. The Tribunal held that post-liquidation settlement can only proceed through the Section 230 route under the Companies Act.
TAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the property was actually purchased from a different company than the one referred to in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal found absence of any live nexus between the assessee and the alleged incriminating material.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration could not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47). The Court held that no capital gains tax liability arose for the relevant assessment year.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance computed under Section 14A cannot be directly added while computing book profits under Section 115JB. Matter was remanded for fresh computation following the Vireet Investment ruling.
The Court granted interim protection against coercive recovery proceedings after the petitioner argued that the revisional order was passed beyond the three-year statutory limitation period under the CGST Act.
The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenue appeals challenging banks’ eligibility for CENVAT credit on service tax paid for deposit insurance premium. The Court held that the issue already stood concluded by earlier Kerala and Bombay High Court rulings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
