The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision to admit an additional TP ground allowing reconsideration of AEs as the tested party. It held that no substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh factual examination.
The High Court refused bail, holding that prima facie material showed demand and partial acceptance of illegal gratification. Such allegations were found to seriously undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court permitted interim release of seized imported goods upon payment of quantified enhanced duty and furnishing a bank guarantee. It clarified that adjudication proceedings may continue independently.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the genuineness of the building construction expenditure is proved, the consequential claim of depreciation on such genuine assets cannot be denied to trust since depreciation was claimed only on actual assets used for charitable purpose.
The High Court held that the petitioner had duly submitted the original title deed as security and directed the Department to trace and return it within a fixed time.
The issue was whether ITAT could reject appeals after an administrative transfer. The High Court ruled such dismissals are invalid and appeals must be heard on merits.
The Supreme Court held that belated payment alone cannot defeat society membership where lawful occupation and valid AGM resolutions exist. The key takeaway is that delay affects only financial consequences, not the right to membership.
ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countries. Hence, assessee is an Indian national and thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules is not sustainable since the assessee’s own interest-free funds were substantially higher than the investment. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
Section 7 application was initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent, in collusion between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, for purposes other than genuine insolvency resolution.
