The Court held that prosecution cannot continue when no recovery is made and the only material is statements of co-accused. It ruled that such statements alone cannot justify a trial under Sections 489B and 489C.
The Supreme Court canceled anticipatory bail granted to accused who concealed the setting aside of an ex parte injunction while attempting to dispossess lawful property. The ruling emphasizes careful judicial scrutiny in serious offences.
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under GST Section 130 are not permissible against a registered dealer; actions should have been initiated under Sections 73/74.
The Court held that the first refund application filed in 2018 stopped the limitation period and that subsequent filings after deficiency memos were a continuation, making the refund claim timely.
The Court accepted a previously rejected Form F worth ₹6.29 crore after verifying its authenticity. It held that genuine branch transfer claims cannot be denied solely for delayed production.
Tribunal held that no capital gains arise on amalgamation or demerger carried out as part of a genuine family settlement. It ruled that such restructuring is not a “transfer” under tax law, affirming the assessee’s indexed cost and tax-neutral treatment.
ITAT Chennai ruled that notional contract values in F&O trading cannot be treated as real income. The case was sent back to the AO for reassessment based on actual profits and losses.
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable since the additional income offered by the assessee was voluntary and addition is not based upon incriminating material seized during the course of search. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that development right of a defaulting developer do not constitute ‘asset’ or ‘property’ of corporate debtor. Further, since the said development agreement stood terminated prior to initiation of CIRP no subsisting or enforceable right survived in favour of corporate debtor.
