The ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54B after the Assessing Officer, in a remand report, verified that the land was used for agricultural purposes. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) could not disregard those findings without contrary evidence.
The Madras High Court held that a cash loan advanced in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains legally recoverable. It ruled that the breach may attract statutory penalties but does not invalidate the underlying transaction or bar recovery through a civil suit.
CESTAT held that purchase invoices, GST returns, stock registers, and job work challans sufficiently established lawful ownership of the seized gold. The Tribunal ruled that the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act had been discharged, making confiscation and penalties unsustainable.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A without issuing prior notice violated the principles of natural justice. It quashed the blocking order while permitting fresh action in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA could not be imposed where the importer submitted all relevant documents, including an emission certificate from an authorized agency. The Tribunal ruled that failure to identify any deficiency during assessment was attributable to Customs, not the importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the actual user condition imposed through a DGFT Public Notice could not be enforced against imports under a transferable post-export DFIA. The Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed issuance of a certificate for revalidation of expired DFIAs.
NCLT Mumbai dispensed with meetings of shareholders and certain creditors after noting that the transferor company was a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. The Tribunal held that no shares were required to be issued under the proposed amalgamation.
The Court held that the assessment and consequential demand could not stand where the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and offered a bona fide explanation. The matter was remanded to the notice stage for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the entire sale consideration could not be assessed as short-term capital gains without examining the cost of acquisition and improvement. It remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available records.
The NCLT Kochi held that a loan cannot be treated as secured financial debt during CIRP where the security interest exists only over the promoters’ personal assets. It directed reclassification of the claim as unsecured financial debt and ordered reconstitution of the Committee of Creditors, if required.
