NCLAT Delhi held that collusive bidding and bid rigging duly proved on the basis of evidence such as common IP usage; use of fake and fabricated documents. Thus, order of commission holding appellant guilty u/s. 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) upheld.
Delhi High Court held that simple default of loan payable outside India cannot restrict Indian Citizen to travel abroad since there is no civil or criminal proceedings against petitioner in India. Thus, impugned Look-Out Circular quashed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the leasehold rights with regard to the leased property are the assets of the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, liquidator has not committed any illegality in including the demised leased land in the Liquidation Estate of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, appeal dismissed.
Tribunal ruled that concessional customs duty was unavailable where imported goods were not actually used in manufacturing due to a fire, upholding duty demand while setting aside penalties.
The Court held that rejection of a settlement application without settlement terms does not bar an assessee from contesting assessment on merits, affirming revival of appellate rights.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated without a properly signed Section 151 approval are invalid. The notice under Section 148 was quashed, and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed Section 80P deduction on bank interest after finding no binding jurisdictional ruling and applying the principle that the favorable view must prevail. The key takeaway is that surplus deposit interest qualifies for deduction in such circumstances.
Tribunal deleted protective additions after finding no corresponding substantive assessment. The ruling clarifies that protective action cannot stand alone under Sections 147/143(3).
Tribunal upheld disallowance of Section 54F exemption after the assessee failed to prove ownership of the residential property. The ruling confirms that deduction requires clear evidence of title.
