NCLT Chennai directs initiation of liquidation proceedings under section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of the Corporate Debtor due to failure of implementing the resolution plan. Thus, the present application is allowed.
Approval under Section 153D was invalid, as it was granted mechanically and collectively for several years, without independent application of mind. Such perfunctory approval defeats the statutory safeguard intended by the legislature. Consequently, the entire proceedings and assessments were quashed.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a tax order dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing Bombay HC’s Premkumar Luthra ruling, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must adjudicate the merits under Section 250(6).
Charitable Trust Registration Rejected on Technicality? ITAT Agra rules CIT(E) must allow rectification for wrong clause application (12A) and restore for fresh merit-based review and hearing.
Tribunal held that goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset. AO & CIT(A)’s disallowance based on colourable device allegation was quashed.
Tribunal held that write-off of ₹9.56 crore foreign investment in USA subsidiary was incurred for commercial expediency and business expansion, qualifying as business loss under the Income Tax Act.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Andaman Timber Industries, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the right to cross-examination is mandatory for any addition based on a third-party statement. Failure to grant this right nullifies the assessment order.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed merely on a survey statement when the builder consistently follows the Project Completion Method. Additions of ₹19.2 crore were deleted.
$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
