The courts upheld LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to alleged penny stock manipulation. Documentary records, banking transactions, and Demat evidence supported the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to entertain a GST writ petition. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s reliance on the Glaxo Smith Kline precedent.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP after the Calcutta High Court upheld the ITAT finding that reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO had only suspicion and no valid reason to believe income escaped assessment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals after observing that the classification dispute had already been settled in an earlier judgment upheld by the Court. The ruling confirms reliance on the precedent followed by CESTAT.
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Bombay High Court order condoning delay in filing Form 10B audit report under the Income Tax Act. The High Court had accepted the explanation that the delay occurred due to lack of awareness of newly introduced online filing procedures.
The Supreme Court held that sureties cannot be burdened with liability for excess withdrawals allowed by the bank without their consent. However, guarantors remain liable for the original sanctioned loan amount covered by the guarantee.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order quashing reassessment notices issued to multiple foreign companies of the GE Group. The High Court had held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to reopen assessments.
The Supreme Court held that courts must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and reject suits that indirectly seek enforcement of prohibited benami transactions. The ruling strengthens Order VII Rule 11 CPC as a safeguard against sham and legally barred litigation.
The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically become unenforceable merely because the purchaser failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be invoked merely to recover disputed dues arising from contractual transactions.
