The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST demand order after notices were sent to the petitioner’s email Junk Folder, preventing awareness and response. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioner can submit replies and be heard.
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
Tribunal held that a provision for bad debts need not be routed through the Profit & Loss account in the first eligible year under Section 36(1)(viia). The disallowance was deleted as the audited statements reflected the provision as on 31.03.2007.
The tribunal held that the resolution plan was invalid because several valuable properties were omitted from the Information Memorandum. The ruling emphasises that all assets must be valued and disclosed, and security interests cannot be extinguished without legal basis.
Tribunal upheld CoC’s power under Section 27 to replace Resolution Professional, ruling that a pending challenge to CoC’s constitution cannot block appointment.
The Court held that assessments under Section 73 without prior Rule 142(1)(A) notices are invalid. Section 61 scrutiny must be completed first, and unsatisfactory explanations require issuance of the notice. The assessments were quashed, and the matter remanded to the proper officer.
The Court held that Section 44AF, as a special provision, overrides the requirements of Section 139(9). It ruled that treating the return as defective was unjustified and directed issuance of the refund.
The Court held that extended pre-trial detention would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial. It relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged incarceration in documentary-based cases. Bail was therefore granted on strict terms.
The Court held that the appellate authority set aside a refund without proper scrutiny or reasoning. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on whether the services constituted export or intermediary services.
