Calcutta High Court held that the bail application of the petitioner involved in economic offence of more than Rs. 6200 crores rejected since there are 444 cases pending against the petitioner and also there are chances of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
NCLAT Delhi held that appeal of Unsuccessful Resolution Applicant not entertained since after submitting preliminary Resolution Plan, applicant, did not submit final Resolution Plan and even did not participated in the Challenge Mechanism. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that the resolution professional is obliged to treat claims of genuine homebuyers, whose payments being reflected in the account of Corporate Debtor, at par with other homebuyers even when there was delay in filing their claims.
Tribunal held that addition for alleged accommodation entry could not stand where AO made no independent verification. Genuine sales, banking-channel receipts and tax records supported deletion.
ITAT Bangalore set aside reassessment orders for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, ruling that failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act invalidates the proceedings.
NCLT admitted a Section 10 application for CIRP against a company after financial default was established. A moratorium was declared, and an IRP was appointed to manage insolvency proceedings.
NCLT Mumbai held that the Karanja Terminal & Logistics Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] has committed a default in repaying the financial debt to the Financial Creditor for a sum well beyond rupees one crores. Thus, application u/s. 7 of IBC for initiation of CIRP admitted.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
ITAT quashed reassessment notice issued by Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO. Addition of ₹29.69 crore was invalidated, and Revenue’s appeal became infructuous.
