Supreme Court held that section 64(d) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 restricts Multi-State Co-operative Society investment only to entities in the same line of business. Accordingly, Multi-State Co-operative Society is ineligible to submit resolution plan for corporate debtor which doesn’t operate in same line of business.
Supreme Court held that borrower doesn’t possess any legal right to a personal hearing by banks before classifying their account as fraud account. Accordingly, the civil appeal is partly allowed.
The Tribunal invalidated reassessment proceedings since the Section 148 notice was issued after 01.04.2021, making it time-barred. The ruling reinforces strict limitation compliance for reopening cases.
The case focuses on systemic delays and technical shortcomings in the e-filing system. The Court directed the Department to file an affidavit addressing these concerns.
ITAT Agra held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act before setting off carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee succeeds on this ground.
The issue was whether gross receipts should be treated as inclusive of service tax. The Tribunal held that where tax is not separately collected, cum-tax benefit must be granted. The matter was remanded for fresh computation.
The issue was whether Revenue appeals with low penalty amounts are maintainable. The Tribunal held that appeals below ₹50 lakh must be dismissed under CBIC litigation policy.
The case examined whether services involving supply of materials could be taxed under construction-related categories. The Tribunal ruled that these are works contract services requiring proper classification. The failure to do so rendered the demand unsustainable.
The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld deduction of ESOP expenses under Section 37(1) by relying on binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. It ruled that prior judicial decisions in the assessee’s own case justified deletion of disallowance.
