The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a Section 68 addition after finding that the lenders identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the loan transaction had been established.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the Revenue’s appeal after it was not pressed due to the low tax effect in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Liberty was reserved to revive the appeal if required.
The Gujarat High Court held that even where on-money receipts are established, only the profit embedded in those receipts can be taxed. The Revenue’s appeal seeking taxation of the entire receipt was dismissed.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the Section 68 addition after holding that the Tribunal had properly examined the evidence and concluded that the unsecured loan transactions were not genuine.
The Karnataka High Court held that appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against inadequacy of sentence are not maintainable. It relied on an earlier Coordinate Bench decision and dismissed the appeals.
The Bombay High Court set aside the transfer of assessment jurisdiction after finding no cogent material or recorded reasons linking the assessee with the searched group. It held that a Section 127 transfer cannot be based on speculation.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order that was issued before the expiry of the time granted for responding to a reminder notice. The matter was remanded after directing payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment after finding that repeated notices uploaded only on the GST portal did not provide an effective opportunity to respond. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google Ads amounts to use under the Trade Marks Act. However, such use alone does not automatically establish infringement.
The Calcutta High Court held that a business has no legal right to compel ChatGPT to display its links or promote its platform. The Court refused interim relief after finding no prima facie legal right or intellectual property infringement.
