NCLAT Delhi sets aside dismissal of Canara Bank’s Section 95 applications against personal guarantors, following Supreme Court ruling in Dilip B Jiwrajka on the role of resolution professionals under IBC.
Bombay High Court admits PCIT appeal against ITAT deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) for excess cash payments, questioning reliance on a specific precedent.
Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte tax order against Standard Press, remanding the dispute over whether compounded tax under TNGST Act overrides statutory sales exemptions.
Calcutta High Court orders the GSTIN portal reactivation for Ashirvad Food Products to make the appeal pre-deposit, ensuring the right to appeal is not blocked by ‘inactive’ status.
Punjab & Haryana High Court denies pre-arrest bail to petitioner involved in a fake ITC scheme, citing operation of a fictitious firm, false e-way bills, and non-cooperation with GST investigation.
DCIT Vs Hindustan Clean Energy Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Project Terminated, Shares Worth Zero – ITAT Allows ₹68 Cr Capital Loss & Strikes Down 68 Addition A 90MW hydropower project was allotted by the Himachal Pradesh Govt. to HPPPL in 2009, which paid ₹18 Cr upfront fees. A project company MHEPCL was formed, shares were moved […]
The ITAT Delhi fully dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming the deletion of both the Rs.8.09 Cr peak credit addition and the Rs.49.54 Lakh interest disallowance after the assessee proved the sufficiency of own capital and commercial expediency. Consequently, the assessee’s cross-objection against the validity of the reassessment was dismissed as infructuous, reinforcing that no addition can be sustained without adequate proof of unexplained income.
The ITAT struck down the Rs. 8.19 crore addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) by ignoring the assessee’s share valuation based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The decision affirms that the AO lacks the authority to substitute their own value when a recognized method under Rule is used, and the underlying asset valuation is further corroborated by a higher DVO valuation.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical, same-day approval for 43 cases under Section 153D vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed for lack of valid approval, emphasizing the necessity of independent application of mind by the approving authority.
Madras High Court held that penalty under section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act [FERA] is not applicable since unrealised export proceeds is less than 10%. Accordingly, writ appeals are allowed and order is quashed.
