The NCLAT held that unregistered profit-sharing agreements do not create leasehold or occupancy rights in immovable property. The tribunal upheld eviction of the occupant from the corporate debtor’s hotel premises during CIRP.
While approving the resolution plan, NCLT clarified that exemptions relating to taxes, duties, and statutory compliances must be obtained from the competent authorities separately. Approval of the plan does not itself waive statutory liabilities.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after finding that transfer pricing adjustments may have been added twice while computing the assessee’s income. The issue requires fresh examination after granting an opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Chandigarh held that the assessee could not establish the authenticity of the purchase transactions underlying the LTCG claim. The inability to satisfactorily explain the acquisition of shares led to denial of exemption under Section 10(38) and confirmation of the addition under Section 68.
The High Court upheld denial of Section 10(38) exemption after concurrent findings established that the share transactions lacked genuineness. The Supreme Court later dismissed the SLP against the decision.
The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of Section 10(38) exemption after finding that the authorities had rightly treated the share transactions as bogus. The Court held that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence could not be interfered with in appeal.
Although the Scheme was sanctioned, the Tribunal clarified that the Income Tax Department remained free to investigate any tax implications arising from the arrangement. Appropriate action under tax laws was expressly kept open.
The High Court held that issuing a demand notice along with a draft assessment order violated the mandatory procedure under Section 144C. Since the assessment had effectively been completed at the draft stage, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Court found that the ITAT wrongly held there was no business income despite the assessment record showing income under “Business and profession.” The finding was held to be perverse and the orders were set aside.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure cannot be sustained when audited books are accepted and no specific defects or bogus expenses are identified. The Tribunal deleted the entire 10% estimated addition.
