The Tribunal allowed the bank’s recovery application after borrowers failed to appear or dispute the claim, resulting in an ex-parte decision. It permitted recovery of ₹37.80 lakh with interest and costs and allowed sale of hypothecated assets if payment is not made.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed recovery of ₹10.74 lakh after the borrower defaulted on a car loan and failed to appear in the proceedings. The bank’s documentary evidence remained unrebutted.
The Tribunal removed the transfer pricing addition on delayed receivables from associated enterprises, holding that the company’s profit margins exceeded comparable companies and interest was already embedded in pricing.
Supreme Court held that even if a raid under the PCPNDT Act was unauthorized by the full District Appropriate Authority, evidence collected during the search may still be admissible. As allegations regarding non-maintenance of mandatory records existed, the complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.
Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking a ban on a film after the filmmaker filed an affidavit withdrawing the disputed title and undertaking to adopt a new title that would not resemble or evoke the earlier one.
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
The ITAT relied on surrounding circumstances, documentary evidence, and the principle of human probabilities to conclude that cash consideration was paid in a land transaction. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unaccounted sale consideration as short-term capital gains.
Israr Ahmad Khan Vs Amarnath Prasad & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court considered contempt proceedings arising from alleged non-compliance with its earlier order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeals No. 7023/2025 and 7024/2025. At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel representing the alleged contemnors sought permission to withdraw from the matter, […]
The High Court declined to implead a Minister after the District Collector clarified that a prohibitory order did not intend to hinder compliance with a prior court direction. The Court held that contrary public statements cannot override judicial verdicts.
