The NCLT refused to dispense with the transferee company’s shareholders’ meeting, holding that shareholders should evaluate the implications of the recent acquisition and proposed amalgamation despite the subsidiary being wholly owned.
The NCLT approved the takeover of minority shareholding after finding that all procedural and statutory requirements under the Companies Act had been complied with. The Tribunal held that the Scheme was fair, reasonable, and legally compliant.
The ITAT held that Section 69A could not be invoked as the director was not the owner of the unaccounted cash generated through over-invoicing. The Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition while affirming that the company owned the cash.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the order denying Input Tax Credit and directed fresh adjudication, holding that the issue must be reconsidered in light of earlier Division Bench judgments concerning retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration and entitlement to ITC.
The Jharkhand High Court directed the authority to implement the CESTAT order and determine whether a refund with interest or tax with interest was payable. The exercise must be completed within three months after hearing the petitioner, if necessary.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal after finding that the appeal fee was paid under an incorrect head and the 754-day delay remained unexplained. The Tribunal held that the defects were not cured and no condonation petition was filed.
ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits recorded in audited books and linked to disclosed business transactions could not be taxed under Section 69A. The Tribunal deleted the ₹5.60 crore addition after finding the source of deposits was explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures could not be treated as equity merely to deny interest deductions. The Tribunal deleted the ₹76.45 crore transfer pricing adjustment arising from such recharacterization.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a taxpayer cannot avoid responsibility for earlier failures to respond merely because the final notice was sent to a different email address. However, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The ITAT found inconsistencies in the selection and rejection of comparable companies for determining the arm’s length price of international transactions. It directed inclusion and exclusion of specific comparables and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal.
