The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
Professional and technical advisory services rendered from India to foreign clients in connection with overseas securities offerings qualify for deduction under Section 80-O as there was coordinate Bench’s decision in the assessee’s own case for AY 1995-96
The Supreme Court held that the decree remained executable despite delay in depositing the balance sale consideration and ruled that the High Court exceeded its revisional powers. The executing court’s order was restored.
The Court held that an adjudication based solely on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch cannot stand when the prescribed procedure under Circular 183/15/2022-GST is not followed. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing but dismissed the special leave petitions, upholding the impugned judgments. Petitioners may still pursue other remedies under law.
The Supreme Court condoned the delay but dismissed the special leave petitions, affirming the impugned judgments. Petitioners can still pursue other legal remedies.
The High Court granted bail after noting that investigation was complete, the petitioner had been in custody since May 2022, and no further recovery was pending. The ruling emphasizes that continued detention was unnecessary for a magisterial trial yet to begin.
The Court allowed bail after noting six months of custody, holding that continued detention was unnecessary. Allegations of fake firms and large ITC misuse were left for trial.
The Court rejected anticipatory bail after noting allegations involving forged air tickets and financial misappropriation. It held that the seriousness of accusations required further investigation.
The Court held that prolonged custody and uncertainty over trial completion justified granting bail. It ruled that the appellant’s completed minimum sentence period warranted release.
