ITAT Chandigarh upheld rejection of Endocrine And Breast Surgery Foundation’s Section 12A registration, ruling its activities were unethical and focused on networking with pharma companies rather than genuine charitable work.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
ITAT Pune ruled that the late filing of the Form 10B audit report is not fatal to the charitable trust exemption if filed before assessment completion. The court reversed the disallowance of application of income solely based on procedural delay.
An Official Liquidator Report filed in the Gujarat High Court was disposed of, approving a final settlement payment of Rs 90 lakh to PNB and GIIC as unsecured creditors in the liquidation of Aesculapius Remedies Ltd. The funds are to be distributed under Section 530 after a CA-verified claim report confirmed the creditors’ unsecured status.
High Court ruled against petitioner, stating that offense of possessing significant cash and a gold bar is outside protection afforded by Section 218 of BNSS. Ruling affirms lower court’s order taking cognizance under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The High Court set aside CESTAT’s remand orders, ruling that the legal challenge to DRI jurisdiction is resolved by the Supreme Court’s definitive judgment. The court condoned the substantial filing delay conditional on the deposit of ₹10,000/- in costs per appeal.
The Supreme Court admitted a PIL seeking nationwide prohibition of online gambling and betting and the application of strict regulatory measures. The Court requested assistance from the Revenue’s panel counsel before proceeding with directions on taxation, blocking, and data protection reliefs.
The ITAT Rajkot set aside the addition of ₹16.99 lakhs in Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) against the assessee, who acted only as a Power of Attorney (POA) holder for the property sale. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee was not the property owner or seller.
The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noting that the petitioner was not a partner or director of the accused company and that the complainant did not simply rely on the petitioner’s introduction.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST assessment order, ruling that the revenue authority’s scheduling of a personal hearing before the deadline for the assessee’s reply was procedurally incorrect. The holding emphasizes that an assessment must be performed according to the scheme of Section 75, which allows the assessee a right to adjournment and requires the hearing to address the filed reply.
