The Madras High Court held that a cash loan advanced in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains legally recoverable. It ruled that the breach may attract statutory penalties but does not invalidate the underlying transaction or bar recovery through a civil suit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the actual user condition imposed through a DGFT Public Notice could not be enforced against imports under a transferable post-export DFIA. The Tribunal allowed the exemption and directed issuance of a certificate for revalidation of expired DFIAs.
The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected solely because no separate condonation application was filed.
The ITAT held that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E could not be sustained because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding violations of Sections 269SS and 269T in the assessment order. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained because the assessee produced complete documentary evidence supporting the share transactions. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to bring any cogent material to rebut the evidence or justify denial of Section 10(38) exemption.
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing order issued without authentication or a digital signature is invalid in law. Consequently, it quashed the ₹85 crore transfer pricing adjustment and allowed the assessee’s appeals.
The ITAT held that an opening cash balance cannot be treated as unexplained merely because the previous year’s income tax return reflected nil cash. It deleted the addition after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding accumulated withdrawals from taxed income.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
The NCLT held that a film co-production arrangement involving joint investment, shared control, and profit sharing did not create an operational debt under the IBC. It dismissed the Section 9 petition without examining limitation or set-off.
The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While the AO may examine the DCF valuation, he cannot discard it and adopt the NAV method on his own.
