The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition, confirming the Appellate Authority’s rejection of an appeal against GST registration cancellation due to a statutory limitation period being exceeded by six months. The court held that the admitted delay was fatal as the petitioner failed to provide a justifiable explanation for the excessive lapse.
SC held that a cooperative bank was not employer of canteen workers engaged by a society within its premises. It laid down factors to determine employer–employee status, emphasising contractual and control analysis.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
Supreme Court held that informing an arrestee’s spouse or recording diary entries is no substitute for directly informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
Court held that pre-show cause consultation is not required when the case is booked for evasion or suppression, and advised the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.
NCLAT held that the NCLT erred in rejecting a CoC-approved resolution plan, emphasizing that commercial wisdom should prevail absent statutory violations under Section 30(2) of the IBC.
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the transfer of an income tax assessment file from Udaipur to New Delhi in the Murliwala Agrotech case, ruling that the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act cannot be circumvented without recorded reasons.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that debt and default under Section 7 of the IBC were established despite partial loan disbursement.
Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order confirming addition of ₹15.01 lakh as unexplained cash deposits, directing the authority to give the assessee a fair opportunity to rebut the remand report and produce supporting evidence.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.11 Cr capital gains addition for the sale of alleged agricultural land back to the AO for fresh verification. The matter was sent back due to the assessee’s non-compliance and non-submission of evidence in prior proceedings.
