The Bombay High Court directed revival of the assessee’s appeal after the Supreme Court remanded Section 151A reassessment matters for fresh consideration. The Court allowed the assessee to raise all legal and factual grounds, including limitation, before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Tribunal held that the estimated disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted and should not form part of book profits, following the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and 269T. Following the Gujarat High Court’s precedent, it deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
The ITAT Nagpur held that investments already disclosed in the balance sheet could not be treated as unexplained investments. It deleted the addition after finding that the Assessing Officer had added disclosed investments.
The ITAT set aside the rejection of registration under Section 12AB after noting that only one opportunity of hearing had been provided. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to allow the assessee to submit supporting documents.
The NCLT Delhi held that salary dues relating to the period covered by Section 10A of the IBC could not be considered while computing the default amount. After excluding those dues and the interest claim, the alleged default fell below the statutory threshold, leading to dismissal of the insolvency application.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that incomplete data retrieved from an inoperative computer could not prevail over audited books of account. It deleted the addition after finding no evidence of suppressed receipts or unexplained expenditure.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the respondents satisfied the definition of person resident in India under Section 2(v) of FEMA. It consequently affirmed the setting aside of penalties and confiscation imposed by the Enforcement Directorate.
The High Court observed that investigation had concluded, charge sheets had been filed, and proceedings were stalled due to stays against other accused. In these circumstances, it granted regular bail with specified conditions.
The Calcutta High Court held that although the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, prolonged custody without trial justified grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions.
