The issue was whether additions can rest on seized loose sheets termed as dumb documents. The Tribunal upheld Section 69C additions, holding that seized material supported by statements is valid evidence.
The issue was whether an assessment can continue after the assessee’s death. The Tribunal held such an order void ab initio when the legal heir is not substituted.
NCLAT Delhi held that Resolution Professional is required to take control and custody of any assets for which the Corporate Debtor has ownership right including the assets that may or may not be in possession of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, section 18(1) of IBC enables resolution profession to repossess shares held in any subsidiaries of Corporate Debtor.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
NCLAT Delhi held that withdrawal of first notice via second notice under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act doesn’t invalidate the effect of the recovery certificate which the DRT has passed. Accordingly, PIRP was laid in time and hence appeals are allowed.
Allahabad High Court held that bank not permitted to unilaterally reduce interest rates on Fixed Deposit Receipt [FDR] after issuance of the FDRs. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and bank is directed to compute interest on FDRs at originally contracted rates.
The Court refused to quash a detailed GST show-cause notice, holding that the purchaser must participate in adjudication over alleged fraudulent ITC claims.
Input tax credit was upheld as the requirement of actual tax deposit by sellers was introduced only prospectively and could not be applied retrospectively.
The Supreme Court ruled that duty-free imports under export incentive licences cannot be denied without evidence of fraud. Valid licences and verified exports were held sufficient to retain benefits.
Calcutta High Court held that marking of company with ‘management dispute’ by ROC has nothing to do with transaction of the company with its banker. Hence, freezing of bank account based on the same is unlawful.
