CCI directed investigation into allegations that certain liquor manufacturers and distributors entered into restrictive agreements to increase market share and influence retail supply patterns.
The Mumbai ITAT held that donations made as part of CSR expenditure can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if statutory conditions are satisfied. The Tribunal clarified that disallowance under Section 37 does not prohibit relief under Chapter VI-A.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a mismatch in loan repayment figures arising from an unpresented cheque could not automatically justify addition under Section 68. The Tribunal directed limited verification of subsequent payment before deciding the taxability issue conclusively.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that a demolished and uninhabitable structure could not be treated as a residential house for Section 54F purposes. The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s eligibility for capital gains exemption.
The Gujarat High Court held that a taxpayers selection of No for personal hearing in Form DRC-06 cannot override the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court quashed the order passed without granting personal hearing.
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be invoked merely to recover disputed dues arising from contractual transactions.
The Pune ITAT held that entire cash deposits in bank accounts cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income when the assessee appears to be only a conduit in an accommodation entry network. The Tribunal restricted the taxable addition to 2% of deposits after finding no evidence of actual enrichment.
ITAT Kolkata held that entire bogus purchases must be added under Section 69C where the supplier was proved to be a paper entity and no evidence of actual delivery of goods existed. The ruling reiterates that bank payments and invoices alone cannot establish genuineness.
ITAT Kolkata held that presumptive taxation under Section 44AD was wrongly invoked where the assessee’s turnover exceeded ₹2 crore. The Tribunal clarified that statutory turnover limits must be strictly satisfied before applying presumptive profit provisions.
The Court held that Members of Parliament and other constitutional authorities are entitled to the honorific “Hon’ble” under established protocol. It clarified that personal familiarity or grievances cannot justify omission of the recognized honorific.
