Delhi High Court held that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unwarranted since efficacious alternative remedies under DRT and NCLT. Accordingly, writ petition is misconceived.
The Tribunal remanded the sustained cash deposit addition after accepting additional evidence. It directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the ₹7.02 lakh addition through de novo adjudication.
NCLAT Delhi held that that Provisional Attachment Order has to be treated to cease by virtue of legislative scheme under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and there is no necessity to obtain any order by the SRA from the adjudicating authority under the PMLA.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that bail application is liable to be dismissed since twin conditions laid down in section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) not satisfied. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unsustainable as no specific defects were identified. The ruling confirms that estimation of income cannot be based on assumptions when records are supported by documentation.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of the faceless authority violated Section 151A. With the notice invalid, the reassessment and jewellery addition were quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred in applying a 15% illiquidity discount on shares valued by the NAV method. SEBI MF guidelines and DCF-based precedents were deemed irrelevant. The assessee’s valuation was confirmed, and the Rs. 8.70 crore addition was nullified.
The Tribunal annulled the reassessment after finding that both the notice and order were issued to a company that had been struck off. It held the proceedings invalid and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that passing assessment orders after the statutory one-month period prescribed under Section 144C(13) is invalid. The assessee’s appeals were allowed, and both orders were set aside.
