The NCLT held that insolvency proceedings against a personal guarantor cannot proceed unless the guarantee has been specifically invoked through a contractual demand notice. A Rule 7 notice under the Personal Guarantor Rules was found to be merely procedural. Since no valid invocation was established, the Tribunal ruled that no default had arisen under the IBC.
The Tribunal held that, apart from the CBDT clarification, the seller had declared the capital gains and discharged taxes. Therefore, the purchaser could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1).
The NCLT dismissed the insolvency application after finding that the agreements forming the basis of the alleged operational debt were not properly executed. The absence of signatures and uncertainty regarding execution dates undermined their evidentiary value. As a result, the applicant failed to establish a maintainable claim under Section 9 of the IBC.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest to the date of refund determination under Section 143(1) was found to be incorrect.
The ITAT held that Section 56(2)(viib) cannot apply where equity shares are issued upon conversion of CCDs without receipt of fresh consideration during the relevant year. The ruling emphasizes that the provision is triggered only upon actual receipt of share consideration.
The High Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the investigation into the alleged liquor syndicate was at a crucial stage and required custodial interrogation of the accused. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest protection.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since the Tribunal had issued no direction to tax ₹5 crore as income from other sources, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that actual rent received under genuine, registered agreements cannot be replaced with hypothetical market rent without cogent evidence of manipulation or unaccounted consideration. Since the Revenue failed to establish suppression of rent, the ALV addition was deleted.
ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cash resources to meet the impugned credit card payments. Since the authorities did not establish utilisation of cash elsewhere, the addition was deleted.
