The ITAT Hyderabad held that the assessment orders were time-barred under Section 153 despite the DRP process. Both assessments were quashed after applying the limitation prescribed under the Act.
The ITAT held that limitation under Section 153B had to be computed from the searched person’s last panchanama, making the assessments time-barred. The assessment orders were therefore quashed.
The Karnataka High Court held that the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory in every case. It quashed the stay rejection orders and directed disposal of the appeals without insisting on the pre-deposit.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
The NCLT Bengaluru directed the bank to hand over the original title deeds after finding that the successful resolution applicant had paid the entire amount under the approved resolution plan. It held that pending litigation over interest did not justify withholding the documents.
The NCLT Bengaluru admitted the CIRP application after finding that the corporate debtor had expressly acknowledged the operational debt and default. It held that financial hardship did not defeat admission under the IBC.
The NCLT Chennai directed meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors to consider a composite scheme involving demerger and amalgamation. The order lays down the process for stakeholder approval under Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act.
The NCLT Chennai waived equity shareholder meetings after both shareholders of the transferor and transferee companies consented to the amalgamation through affidavits. It directed meetings only for unsecured creditors.
NCLT Guwahati restored the company’s name after finding that it continued to own immovable property and had contemporaneous records showing business operations before its strike-off. The Tribunal held that these facts justified restoration under Section 252(3), while directing compliance with all pending statutory requirements.
The ITAT Pune upheld the deduction under Section 10AA after finding that the Assessing Officer had not established that the SEZ units were formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. It followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
