The Telangana High Court held that recovery proceedings under Section 226(3) cannot automatically extend to a daughter’s bank account merely because she is related to the assessee.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt, holding that revisional courts have limited powers to reappreciate evidence. It also upheld the direction that multiple sentences should run concurrently.
The Supreme Court held that disputed explanations regarding assets and loans must be examined during trial and cannot form the basis for discharge. The High Court’s order discharging the accused was set aside.
The Madras High Court held that overseas travel under LTC was merely an administrative concession without statutory backing. Its withdrawal did not violate service conditions or employees’ rights.
The Court held that an employer acting in accordance with interim judicial directions restraining TDS deduction cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments when it acted in compliance with binding interim directions of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal deleted demands raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
The Telangana High Court held that an assessee cannot file an updated return under Section 139(8A) once assessment proceedings have commenced or are completed. The ruling clarifies that the third proviso to Section 139(8A) bars updated returns after issuance of scrutiny notices.
The Department argued that Section 292BC validated the approval despite alleged deficiencies, but the Tribunal rejected this contention. It held that the amendment could not apply to approvals granted before 1 April 2021. The ruling clarified that subsequent legislative changes could not cure defects in earlier approvals.
The NCLAT held that winding-up proceedings transferred to the NCLT must satisfy the threshold applicable under the IBC at the time of consideration. Since the operational debt claims were below Rs. 1 crore, the petitions were held to be non-maintainable.
The High Court set aside the Order-in-Original after noting the petitioner’s grievance that submitted documents were not considered due to formatting issues. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to present all records.
