The Court held that failure to pay rent after fair rent fixation, without obtaining a stay, amounts to wilful default and justifies eviction under the Rent Control Act.
The ITAT Chennai held that rejecting agricultural income solely for lack of receipts is unjustified when similar income was accepted in earlier and later years.
ITAT Indore held that Proviso to section 12A(2) was very much available for AY 2018-19. Thus, the assessee is eligible to exemption u/s 11/12 on the basis of Proviso to section 12A(2). Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that doubting goods transportation alone cannot justify full disallowance, restricting the addition to 11.54% GP on ₹32.75 lakh purchases.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against Corporate Debtor [Turnest Resources Private Limited] admitted since Financial Creditor has successfully established the existence of a financial debt and default committed by the Corporate Debtor.
Delhi High Court held that gains from legal transaction emanating from an illegal act would still be construed as “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thus, profits from artificially elevated share price qualifies as proceeds of crime and hence attachment justifiable.
ITAT Delhi invalidated a reassessment under Sections 144/147, citing mechanical approval by authorities and incorrect statutory references. The ruling reinforces that higher authorities must apply proper legal mind when granting sanction under Section 151.
ITAT observed that applying an upper turnover filter is essential in transfer pricing cases where the assessee’s turnover is much lower. It ordered exclusion of big IT majors from the comparable list and directed fresh computation of ALP.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the notice failed to specify whether it targeted concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The ruling highlights the need for clarity in issuing tax penalties.
ITAT Mumbai held that no extrapolation can be done on estimation basis in absence of any incriminating material. Accordingly, addition rightly deleted by CIT(A). Thus, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed to that extent.
