Gujarat High Court held that assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of personal hearing is not tenable. Accordingly, the order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
The ITAT Delhi deleted additions made under Section 153A for unabated/completed assessment years (AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17) following a search. The ruling strictly applied the Supreme Court’s mandate in Abhisar Buildwell that additions in completed years require the finding of incriminating material during the search.
The Court reiterated that mere drafting labels cannot convert a settlement clause into an arbitration agreement. Since Clause 8.28 only contemplated conciliation and allowed recourse to courts, it failed to reflect intent for binding adjudication by an independent arbitrator.
The Supreme Court held that an appellate decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is a nullity. As no legal heirs were substituted, the appeal automatically abated, and the original trial court decree revived and became executable.
ITAT Chandigarh upheld rejection of Endocrine And Breast Surgery Foundation’s Section 12A registration, ruling its activities were unethical and focused on networking with pharma companies rather than genuine charitable work.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
ITAT Pune ruled that the late filing of the Form 10B audit report is not fatal to the charitable trust exemption if filed before assessment completion. The court reversed the disallowance of application of income solely based on procedural delay.
An Official Liquidator Report filed in the Gujarat High Court was disposed of, approving a final settlement payment of Rs 90 lakh to PNB and GIIC as unsecured creditors in the liquidation of Aesculapius Remedies Ltd. The funds are to be distributed under Section 530 after a CA-verified claim report confirmed the creditors’ unsecured status.
High Court ruled against petitioner, stating that offense of possessing significant cash and a gold bar is outside protection afforded by Section 218 of BNSS. Ruling affirms lower court’s order taking cognizance under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The High Court set aside CESTAT’s remand orders, ruling that the legal challenge to DRI jurisdiction is resolved by the Supreme Court’s definitive judgment. The court condoned the substantial filing delay conditional on the deposit of ₹10,000/- in costs per appeal.
