NCLT Kochi held that proposed reduction of paid-up capital is justified on commercial grounds, duly approved by the shareholders, and does not adversely affect any creditors, employees, or other stakeholders. The reduction is proportionate and lawful u/s. 66 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner could not be taxed as unexplained when authorities failed to verify the assessee’s evidence. Both the AO and CIT(A) ignored cash flow records and bank statements without conducting inquiry. The addition was deleted for violating principles of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is eligible for entire credit of foreign taxes, even if the taxability was nil consequent to the deduction on account of business losses or section 10A exemption. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that authorities erred by ignoring the sale deed, receipt, and bank statements solely due to a technical lapse in return filing. Since the documents clearly established the source of cash, the addition could not survive. The order directed deletion of the section 69A addition.
ITAT held that the AO’s verification of seized material, statements, and bank records constituted proper enquiry. Key takeaway: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT prefers a different view.
ITAT Delhi applied the principle that if the foundation (quantum addition) is removed, the superstructure (penalty) collapses. The Section 270A penalty was deleted once the quantum was wiped out. Takeaway: penalties require surviving taxable additions.
ITAT Delhi ruled that penalties under section 271DA cannot be levied without the AO recording satisfaction in the assessment order, following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. Additions made by the AO and CIT(A) during demonetization were deleted, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be imposed on estimated income. While the penalty on actual taxable additions remains, the portion related to estimated income was deleted. Key takeaway: penalties require confirmed income, not mere estimates.
Reassessment proceedings initiated with approval from the wrong authority were held invalid. Courts reiterated that Section 151(ii) specifies the competent sanctioning authority for notices issued after three years, leading to quashing of the assessment and related demand.
