ITAT Mumbai held that development fees collected from passengers was earmarked for capital expenditure towards modernisation and development of airport infrastructure and therefore the same could not be treated as revenue income of the assessee.
The absence of a signature on the charge-framing order sheet was a curable procedural defect and did not vitiate the trial, particularly where the accused was duly informed of and understood the charges against them.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in compliance with DRP directions cannot be revised under Section 263. It clarified that such orders are not erroneous as the Assessing Officer is bound by DRP’s binding instructions.
The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained when based solely on third-party statements and unverified electronic data. It emphasized the absence of independent evidence and upheld the taxpayers denial of cash payments.
The Court held that increased financial liability cannot override the right to just compensation. It refused to revisit earlier rulings granting solatium and interest.
The petitioner’s claim that delay was caused by a tax consultant was rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was not perverse and required no interference.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals after the assessee failed to appear despite multiple notices. Lack of participation led to confirmation of additions made by tax authorities.
NCLT Indore held that pendency of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not a bar to initiation of proceedings under the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC admitted as existence of financial debt and occurrence of default thereon by corporate debtor duly established by financial creditor.
NCLT Mumbai held that application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against corporate debtor admitted as financial debt and default thereon duly established.
The Tribunal upheld attachment as no documentary evidence was provided to establish the source of funds. It held that unexplained money can be treated as proceeds of crime.
