NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable because of pre-existing dispute between the parties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.
The AO questioned genuineness and love and affection behind the gift. The ITAT held that once relationship and capacity are proved through documents, no addition can survive.
NCLAT Delhi held that balance sheet entries are reliable evidence of existence of financial debt. Accordingly, since debt and default against Corporate Debtor established, admission of application u/s. 7 of IBC justified.
The Tribunal ruled that unexplained investment additions cannot stand without concrete proof of actual investment. Mere survey information and assumptions do not shift the burden onto the taxpayer.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission doesn’t possess power to change the head of income and convert the undisclosed portion of income into income u/s. 699B. Further, Settlement application is bound to be rejected once Settlement Commission arrives at the conclusion that full and true disclosure is not done.
No incriminating material showed payment over the registered consideration. The tribunal held that without independent evidence, the ₹1.52 Cr addition could not be sustained.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked despite detailed verification of unsecured loans during scrutiny. The ITAT held that once enquiries are duly conducted, section 263 cannot be used for a deeper re-probe.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could survive when no incriminating material was found for an unabated year. The tribunal held that without search-based evidence, the completed assessment could not be disturbed.
The tribunal noted that the firm had no business activity and only earned interest income. It held that unexplained income cannot be presumed in such circumstances when contributors are identified.
