ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
ITAT Chennai upheld that immovable property transfers within family through registered settlement deeds are exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The AO’s view that such transfers were non-bona-fide was rejected.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
NCLT Mumbai held that non-payment of part of debt when it becomes due and payable amounts to default. Thus, application u/s. 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] duly admitted since there exists financial debt, exceeding threshold limit, and the same is in default.
NCLT Mumbai held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Corporate Debtor [Vibrant Content Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted since debt and default stand established.
The Supreme Court stayed an AP High Court judgment that set aside GST assessment orders and notices lacking the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is admitted since Financial Creditor discharged its burden of proof by demonstrating the existence of a financial debt and default in payment of the financial debt by the Corporate Debtor [Devashray Papers (India) LLP].
Additions of unsecured loans were sustained where creditworthiness was not proved, and relief upheld only for creditors who responded to notices under section 133(6) or furnished adequate documentation. Assessee’s case was reopened under section 148, where AO noticed unsecured loans aggregating to ₹14.94 crore from 164 creditors. On verification.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
The ITAT Chennai allowed a charitable trust to rectify its mistake of applying for provisional 80G registration, remanding the case for reconsideration under the correct clause for a five-year registration.
