The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/143(3) is invalid without a Section 143(2) notice. It ruled that using the return filed under Section 148 triggers the mandatory requirement.
ITAT held that capital introduced from ancestral land sale cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to absence of a registered sale deed. Agreements to sell, identity records, and transaction details sufficiently proved the source.
Delhi HC ruled that both jurisdictional and faceless officers can issue Section 148 notices. It reaffirmed that faceless regime does not eliminate JAO authority until Supreme Court decides otherwise.
The Tribunal found that the authorities mechanically endorsed a factually incorrect premise, resulting in an unjustified DVO reference. Such a negligible 1.71% variation could not support an unexplained-investment addition under Section 69. Due to non-application of mind throughout the process, the 153A assessment was struck down entirely.
Delhi HC set aside the orders after finding that hearing notices were neither emailed nor properly served. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision with mandatory opportunity of hearing.
Assessee succeeded in cross-objection as reassessment lacked jurisdiction and Section 69C addition was inapplicable, confirming deletion of addition and quashing proceedings.
Calcutta High Court held that the bail application of the petitioner involved in economic offence of more than Rs. 6200 crores rejected since there are 444 cases pending against the petitioner and also there are chances of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal of Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant not entertained since after submitting preliminary Resolution Plan, applicant, did not submit final Resolution Plan and even did not participated in the Challenge Mechanism. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the resolution professional is obliged to treat claims of genuine homebuyers, whose payments being reflected in the account of Corporate Debtor, at par with other homebuyers even when there was delay in filing their claims.
