Personal guarantor insolvency jurisdiction follows the corporate debtor's CIRP Bench, enabling inter-territorial transfer and preventing parallel proc...
Section 47-A undervaluation threshold: fraudulent intent requirement faces reconsideration after referral to a larger Bench for authoritative resoluti...
RBI supersession powers over multi-State co-operative banks operate independently of the constitutional six-month ceiling and permit statutory extensi...
For assessment orders passed before 1 April 2025, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose or initiate penalty proceedings for contravention of cash loan or deposit restrictions under section 271D. Non-initiation of such penalty proceedings therefore could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision under section 263. A revisionary order founded solely on that omission was set aside, and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
For assessment orders passed before 1 April 2025, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose or initiate penalty proceedings for contravention of cash loan or deposit restrictions under section 271D. Non-initiation of such penalty proceedings therefore could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision under section 263. A revisionary order founded solely on that omission was set aside, and the taxpayer's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
