The court upheld the trial court’s decision permitting the Income Tax Department to place additional notices on record. Key takeaway: Section 91 Cr.P.C. may be invoked at any stage for documents necessary for fair adjudication.
The Court upheld the customs officer’s reasonable belief for seizing goods over alleged misclassification and found the challenge premature due to pending statutory proceedings. The ruling confirms that classification disputes must be resolved through adjudication under the Customs Act.
The appeal highlighted that the flat sought to be released did not appear in the ED’s list of attached properties. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have independently verified this fact instead of shifting responsibility to the financial creditor. It set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh decision based on a complete examination of records.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
Tribunal remanded the case after finding that documentary evidence submitted during assessment was not examined. The matter is sent back for fresh evaluation with an opportunity of hearing.
The Court held that the premix, understood popularly as instant coffee, must be classified under the specific entry for coffee rather than the general entry for beverage powders. The ruling affirms that common usage prevails over ingredient percentages.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the issue had already been decided in an earlier judgment. It held that the previous ruling granting exemption remained binding and unchanged.
ITAT held that the entire disputed turnover cannot be added when purchases are accepted and books are not rejected. Only the embedded profit is taxable, leading to restriction of addition to 5% of turnover.
Court upholds ITAT’s refusal to stay tax recovery, citing the petitioner’s prolonged inaction and failure to meet conditions. Key takeaway: procedural lapses undermined the stay request.
ITAT ruled that a scrutiny order cannot override a 143(1) intimation if the AO fails to examine pending 154 grievances. The case was remanded because the core adjustments were never adjudicated.
